BackgroundBehavioral addiction research has been particularly flourishing over the last two decades. However, recent publications have suggested that nearly all daily life activities might lead to a genuine addiction.Methods and aimIn this article, we discuss how the use of atheoretical and confirmatory research approaches may result in the identification of an unlimited list of “new” behavioral addictions.ResultsBoth methodological and theoretical shortcomings of these studies were discussed.ConclusionsWe suggested that studies overpathologizing daily life activities are likely to prompt a dismissive appraisal of behavioral addiction research. Consequently, we proposed several roadmaps for future research in the field, centrally highlighting the need for longer tenable behavioral addiction research that shifts from a mere criteria-based approach toward an approach focusing on the psychological processes involved.

Following the recent changes to the diagnostic category for addictive disorders in DSM-5, it is urgent to clarify what constitutes behavioral addiction to have a clear direction for future research and classification. However, in the years following the release of DSM-5, an expanding body of research has increasingly classified engagement in a wide range of common behaviors and leisure activities as possible behavioral addiction. If this expansion does not end, both the relevance and the credibility of the field of addictive disorders might be questioned, which may prompt a dismissive appraisal of the new DSM-5 sub-category for behavioral addiction. We propose an operational definition of behavioral addiction together with a number of exclusion criteria, to avoid pathologizing common behaviors and provide a common ground for further research. The definition and its exclusion criteria are clarified and justified by illustrating how these address a number of theoretical and methodological shortcomings that result from existing conceptualizations. We invite other researchers to extend our definition under an Open Science Foundation framework.

Concerns about problematic gaming behaviors deserve our full attention. However, we claim that it is far from clear that these problems can or should be attributed to a new disorder. The empirical basis for a Gaming Disorder proposal, such as in the new ICD-11, suffers from fundamental issues. Our main concerns are the low quality of the research base, the fact that the current operationalization leans too heavily on substance use and gambling criteria, and the lack of consensus on symptomatology and assessment of problematic gaming. The act of formalizing this disorder, even as a proposal, has negative medical, scientific, public-health, societal, and human rights fallout that should be considered. Of particular concern are moral panics around the harm of video gaming. They might result in premature application of diagnosis in the medical community and the treatment of abundant false-positive cases, especially for children and adolescents. Second, research will be locked into a confirmatory approach, rather than an exploration of the boundaries of normal versus pathological. Third, the healthy majority of gamers will be affected negatively. We expect that the premature inclusion of Gaming Disorder as a diagnosis in ICD-11 will cause significant stigma to the millions of children who play video games as a part of a normal, healthy life. At this point, suggesting formal diagnoses and categories is premature: the ICD-11 proposal for Gaming Disorder should be removed to avoid a waste of public health resources as well as to avoid causing harm to healthy video gamers around the world.

This meta-analysis addressed the differential effects of type of childhood maltreatment on major depression, partially explaining between-study variance. The findings clearly highlight the potential impact of the more "silent" types of childhood maltreatment (other than physical and sexual abuse) on the development of depression.

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prompted people to face a distressing and unexpected situation. Uncertainty and social distancing changed people's behaviors, impacting on their feelings, daily habits, and social relationships, which are core elements in human well-being. In particular, restrictions due to the quarantine increased feelings of loneliness and anxiety. Within this context, the use of digital technologies has been recommended to relieve stress and anxiety and to decrease loneliness, even though the overall effects of social media consumption during pandemics still need to be carefully addressed. In this regard, social media use evidence risk and opportunities. In fact, according to a compensatory model of Internet-related activities, the online environment may be used to alleviate negative feelings caused by distressing life circumstances, despite potentially leading to negative outcomes. The present study examined whether individuals who were experiencing high levels of loneliness during the forced isolation for COVID-19 pandemic were more prone to feel anxious, and whether their sense of loneliness prompted excessive social media use. Moreover, the potentially mediating effect of excessive social media use in the relationship between perceived loneliness and anxiety was tested. A sample of 715 adults (71.5% women) aged between 18 and 72 years old took part in an online survey during the period of lockdown in Italy. The survey included self-report measures to assess perceived sense of loneliness, excessive use of social media, and anxiety. Participants reported that they spent more hours/day on social media during the pandemic than before the pandemic. We found evidence that perceived feelings of loneliness predicted both excessive social media use and anxiety, with excessive social media use also increasing anxiety levels. These findings suggest that isolation probably reinforced the individuals' sense of loneliness, strengthening the need to be part of virtual communities. However, the facilitated and prolonged access to social media during the COVID-19 pandemic risked to further increase anxiety, generating a vicious cycle that in some cases may require clinical attention.