1 Department of Personality, Assessment, and Psychological Treatments, University of Valencia, Spain.
2 Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
J Behav Addict. 2022 Jul 13;11(2):210-215. doi: 10.1556/2006.2022.00029.
The paper by Sassover and Weinstein (2022) contributes to a timely and complex debate related to the classification of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD). The recent inclusion of CSBD as an impulse-control disorder in the ICD-11 has generated debate since a competitive view is that CSBD should rather be classified as an addictive disorder. Sassover and Weinstein (2022) reviewed existing evidence and concluded it does not support the conceptualization of CSBD as an addictive disorder. Although we agree regarding the relevance and timely nature of considering the classification of CSBD, we respectfully disagree with the position that relying on the components model of addiction (Griffiths, 2005) is the optimal approach for determining whether or not CSBD is an addictive disorder. In this commentary, we discuss potential pitfalls of relying on the components model to conceptualize CSBD as an addictive disorder and argue that considering a process-based approach is important for advancing this timely debate.
萨索弗和温斯坦（2022）的论文对当前关于强迫性性行为障碍（CSBD）分类的复杂争论做出了贡献。CSBD 最近被 ICD-11 列为冲动控制障碍，引起了争议，因为另一种竞争观点认为 CSBD 更应被归类为成瘾障碍。萨索弗和温斯坦（2022）回顾了现有证据，并得出结论认为，将 CSBD 概念化为成瘾障碍的依据并不充分。尽管我们同意考虑 CSBD 分类的相关性和及时性，但我们不同意这样的立场，即依赖成瘾的成分模型（Griffiths，2005）是确定 CSBD 是否为成瘾障碍的最佳方法。在这篇评论中，我们讨论了依赖成分模型将 CSBD 概念化为成瘾障碍的潜在陷阱，并认为考虑基于过程的方法对于推进这场及时的辩论很重要。
