Background and aimsConsensus in acknowledging compulsive buying-shopping disorder (CBSD) as a distinct diagnosis has been lacking. Before research in this area can be advanced, it is necessary to establish diagnostic criteria in order to facilitate field trials.MethodsThe study consisted of the following phases: (1) operationalization of a broad range of potential diagnostic criteria for CBSD, (2) two iterative rounds of data collection using the Delphi method, where consensus of potential diagnostic criteria for CBSD was reached by an international expert panel, and (3) interpretation of findings taking into account the degree of certainty amongst experts regarding their responses.ResultsWith respect to diagnostic criteria, there was clear expert consensus about inclusion of the persistent and recurrent experience of (a) intrusive and/or irresistible urges and/or impulses and/or cravings and/or preoccupations for buying/shopping; (b) diminished control over buying/shopping; (c) excessive purchasing of items without utilizing them for their intended purposes, (d) use of buying-shopping to regulate internal states; (e) negative consequences and impairment in important areas of functioning due to buying/shopping; (f) emotional and cognitive symptoms upon cessation of excessive buying/shopping; and (g) maintenance or escalation of dysfunctional buying/shopping behaviors despite negative consequences. Furthermore, support was found for a specifier related to the presence of excessive hoarding of purchased items.ConclusionsThe proposed diagnostic criteria can be used as the basis for the development of diagnostic interviews and measures of CBSD severity.

No abstract

Purpose of Review Problematic online buying-shopping became a recent research topic, and the question arises as to whether it would be useful to differentiate between a “predominantly online” and a “predominantly offline” compulsive buying-shopping disorder (CBSD) subtype by analogy with gaming disorder and gambling disorder in the ICD-11. This narrative review aims at reflecting the discussions on overlaps of problematic online buying-shopping with both offline CBSD and specific internet-use disorders. Recent Findings Preliminary data suggest that problematic online buying-shopping shares many commonalities with both offline CBSD and potential specific internet-use disorders (e.g., gaming disorder, pornography-use disorder, or social-network–use disorder). However, there is a lack of research addressing the etiology, underlying affective and cognitive mechanisms, psychosocial correlates, comorbidity profiles, and treatment of problematic online buying-shopping. Summary The question of whether online CBSD can develop independently from offline CBSD or only as medial transformation of offline CBSD still remains unanswered due to limited research on problematic online buying-shopping. Both perspectives are conceivable: that online CBSD represents a standalone specific internet-use disorder or the online subtype of CBSD. Future studies should examine which approach has clinical utility and indicates specific treatment options and better outcomes.

Zusammenfassung. Zielsetzung: Der Beitrag stellt die deutsche Übersetzung der Diagnosekriterien für die Kauf-Shopping-Störung vor, die im Rahmen einer internationalen Delphi-Studie entwickelt wurden. Methodik: In einem iterativen Prozess wurden die vorgeschlagenen englischen Diagnosekriterien aus der Originalveröffentlichung ins Deutsche übersetzt und von den Autor_innen dieses Beitrags konsentiert. Ergebnisse: Deutsche Übersetzung der vorgeschlagenen Diagnosekriterien für die Kauf-Shopping-Störung. Schlussfolgerungen: Die Übersetzung wurde vorgenommen, um die vorgeschlagenen Diagnosekriterien im deutschen Sprachraum zu verbreiten und sowohl Praktiker_innen als auch Forscher_innen zugänglich zu machen. Es bedarf weiterführender Studien zur Prüfung der klinischen Anwendbarkeit und diagnostischen Validität der vorgeschlagenen Kriterien sowie zur Formulierung diagnostischer Entscheidungsregeln.

Zusammenfassung Ziel Ziel der Studie war die Validierung des 13-Item Pathological Buying Screener (PBS, [1]) in einer klinischen Stichprobe. Methodik Der PBS wurde von 413 therapieaufsuchenden Patient/innen ausgefüllt (pathologisches Kaufen n=151, pathologisches Glücksspiel n=59, Alkoholabhängigkeit n=60, andere psychische Erkrankungen [Angststörung, Depression, Essstörung, somatoforme Störung] n=143). An den Daten der Gesamtstichprobe wurden die Faktorenstruktur des PBS mit einer konfirmatorischen Faktorenanalyse und die Reliabilität mittels Cronbachs α getestet. Aussagen zur Diskriminationsfähigkeit des PBS wurden anhand von Gruppenvergleichen getroffen. Die Gruppe mit pathologischem Kaufen beantwortete weitere Fragebögen, um über Korrelationsanalysen die konvergente und divergente Validität des PBS zu untersuchen. Von einigen Patient/innen dieser Gruppe (n=29) lagen PBS-Summenwerte vor und nach Psychotherapie vor, die zur Einschätzung der Änderungssensitivität des Fragebogens herangezogen wurden. Basierend auf einer Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Analyse mit PBS Daten der Patient/innen mit pathologischem Kaufen und aus einer früheren Bevölkerungsstichrobe [1] wurde ein PBS-Schwellenwert für pathologisches Kaufen ermittelt. Ergebnisse Sowohl das Ein-Faktor als auch das Zwei-Faktor Modell mit den Subskalen „Kontrollverlust/Konsequenzen“ (10 Items) und „Exzessives Kaufverhalten“ (3 Items) zeigten eine gute Modellpassung. Die beiden Subskalen waren stark interkorreliert (r=0,92). Eine hierarchische Regressionsanalyse mit einem anderen kaufsuchtspezifischen Fragebogen (abhängige Variablen) ergabe keine Hinweise auf eine eigene inkrementelle Validität der Subskala „Exzessives Kaufverhalten“. Für den PBS-Summenwert sind eine gute konvergente, divergente und diskriminative Validität gegeben. Der empfohlene PBS-Cut-off Wert von ≥29 [1] ist mit einer hohen Sensitivität (98%) und Spezifität (94,7%) verbunden. Schlussfolgerung Der PBS bildet Kaufsuchtsymptome reliabel und valide ab und eignet sich für die Anwendung im klinischen Bereich.

No abstract

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> While identity problems and materialistic value endorsement have been described as predisposing factors for buying-shopping disorder (BSD) in the literature, little empirical data are available on the role of socially undesirable personality features that may contribute to financial misconduct and manipulative interpersonal behaviors in BSD. The dark triad of personality refers to such offensive yet non-pathological personality traits and has been applied to addictive behaviors in the past. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the “dark triad” dimensions Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy predict symptoms of BSD above and beyond identity confusion and materialism, or moderate the relationship between materialism and symptoms of BSD. <b><i>Method:</i></b> The participants comprised a convenience sample (<i>N</i> = 272, 72.4% women) aged between 18 and 67 years. Assessment included standard questionnaires for BSD, identity problems, materialism, and the dark triad of personality. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Zero-order correlations indicate a weak association between BSD and the dark triad dimensions Machiavellianism and narcissism, but not psychopathy. Results of a moderated regression analysis with BSD symptoms as a dependent variable revealed significant main effects for materialism, female gender, and a significant “narcissism by materialism” effect, after accounting for identity confusion/synthesis and the single dark triad traits. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The findings suggest that individuals with BSD attempt to address their narcissistic deficits via materialistic possessions. This assumption warrants further investigation in a clinical sample.

Background Previous investigations on the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q) factor structures in men have been restricted to non-clinical settings, limiting conclusions about the factorial validity in men with eating disorders (ED). This study aimed to examine the factor structure of the German EDE-Q in a clinical group of adult men with diagnosed ED. Methods ED symptoms were assessed using the validated German version of the EDE-Q. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal-axis factoring based on polychoric correlations was conducted for the full sample (N = 188) using Varimax-Rotation with Kaiser-Normalization. Results Horn’s parallel analysis suggested a five-factor solution with an explained variance of 68%. The EFA factors were labeled “Restraint” (items 1, 3–6), “Body Dissatisfaction” (items 25–28), “Weight Concern” (items 10–12, 20), “Preoccupation” (items 7 and 8), and “Importance” (items 22 and 23). Items 2, 9, 19, 21, and 24 were excluded due to low communalities. Conclusions Factors associated with body concerns and body dissatisfaction in adult men with ED are not fully represented in the EDE-Q. This could be due to differences in body ideals in men, e.g., the underestimation of the role of concerns about musculature. Consequently, it may be useful to apply the 17-item five-factor structure of the EDE-Q presented here to adult men with diagnosed ED.