Non‐problematic and problematic binge‐watchers do not differ on prepotent response inhibition: A preregistered pilot experimental study

Electrocortical correlates of impaired motor inhibition and outcome processing are related in high binge‐watching

“…As such, our study provides a potential way forward to more distinctly separate problematic and unproblematic BW at the neural level. This is warranted given recent unfruitful attempts to differentiate between these concepts with behavioral indices (Flayelle, Verbruggen, et al., 2020). Moreover, some authors postulate that mitigating post‐binge negative affect and need for gratification with further watching reflects a vicious cycle with addictive properties (Panda & Pandey, 2017; Riddle et al., 2018; Walton‐Pattison et al., 2018).…”

“…In addition to these mixed inhibition results in the EEG domain, prior work failed to show behavioral deficits in inhibitory performance in high binge-watchers (Flayelle, Verbruggen, et al, 2020). This should discourage examining group differences (e.g., in ERP amplitudes) in isolation.…”

“…These, in turn, may trigger continued watching as a maladaptive coping mechanism (Panda & Pandey, 2017; Shim et al., 2018), which implies impaired integration of outcomes, such as the consequences of watching and neglected goals. Some authors attribute addictive properties to binge watching (Panda & Pandey, 2017; Riddle et al., 2018; Walton‐Pattison et al., 2018), but this claim is yet awaiting substantiation (Flayelle, Verbruggen, et al., 2020). In sum, emerging features of BW potentially include high sensitivity to its rewarding properties; impaired regulation, particularly inhibition, of positive (deepen engagement, suspense, etc.)…”

Negative Affect and Problematic Binge-Watching: The Mediating Role of Unconstructive Ruminative Thinking Style

“…In this study, we aimed to test the mediating role of ruminative thinking styles between negative affect and problematic binge-watching. In line with previous work (Flayelle et al, 2020b), we established three groups of TV series viewers: a) non-binge-watchers (NBWs), b) troublefree binge-watchers (TBWs) and c) problematic bingewatchers (PBWs). From previous binge-watching research (Flayelle et al, 2019b;, we expected that (1a) PBWs would differ from TBWs on binge-watching-related motives (i.e., PBWs reporting more negative reinforcement motives such as coping/escapism) and engagement (i.e., PBWs reporting features such as loss of control or negative consequences) and that (1b) PBWs would report more negative affect than both NBWs and TBWs.…”

“…We recorded socio-demographic variables (i.e., age, educational level, French level, gender and marital status) and TV series viewing habits (i.e., devices used, number of episodes watched in one session, time spent per viewing session during weekdays and days off, watching frequency, reported feeling of TV series watching dependency, presence of functional impact and problematic binge-watching 1 ). TV series viewing habits data were used to form the three groups (i.e., NBWs, TBWs and PBWs) in accordance with the selection criteria of Flayelle et al (2020b) as reported in Table 1. Inclusion criteria for the binge-watching groups were 1) spending at least two hours watching TV series per session and 2) watching at least three episodes consecutively.…”