Authors:
Todd L. Jennings Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

Search for other papers by Todd L. Jennings in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1261-140X
,
Neil Gleason Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Search for other papers by Neil Gleason in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6076-5668
, and
Shane W. Kraus Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

Search for other papers by Shane W. Kraus in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0404-9480
Open access

Abstract

Numerous debates surround the recent inclusion of compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD) in the International Classification of Diseases (11th ed.), such as the appropriate classification of this construct and what symptom criteria best capture this syndrome. Although controversy surrounding CSBD abounds, there is general agreement that researchers should examine this syndrome in diverse groups, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. However, there have been few investigations into how diverse sociocultural contexts may influence the assessment and treatment of CSBD. Therefore, we propose several differential diagnosis considerations when working with sexual and gender diverse clients to avoid CSBD misdiagnosis.

Abstract

Numerous debates surround the recent inclusion of compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD) in the International Classification of Diseases (11th ed.), such as the appropriate classification of this construct and what symptom criteria best capture this syndrome. Although controversy surrounding CSBD abounds, there is general agreement that researchers should examine this syndrome in diverse groups, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. However, there have been few investigations into how diverse sociocultural contexts may influence the assessment and treatment of CSBD. Therefore, we propose several differential diagnosis considerations when working with sexual and gender diverse clients to avoid CSBD misdiagnosis.

Introduction

Individuals with symptoms of Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) experience distress or impairment in functioning due to failure to control sexual thoughts and impulses resulting in repetitive sexual behavior (World Health Organization [WHO], 2018). The inclusion of CSBD in the International Classification of Diseases (11th ed.; ICD-11) generated heated debate (Kraus et al., 2018; WHO, 2018) among researchers and clinicians. Presently, experts disagree on the classification of CSBD as an addiction (Sassover & Weinstein, 2022), what symptom criteria should comprise the diagnostic framework of CSBD (Gola et al., 2022), and whether specific manifestations of CSBD (e.g., compulsive pornography use) constitute a separate disorder (Brand et al., 2022). Although disagreements exist, a point of consensus among researchers is that the assessment of CSBD in diverse populations merits additional attention (Griffin, Way, & Kraus, 2021). Therefore, in addition to addressing common controversies surrounding CSBD, we provide differential diagnosis recommendations for sexual and gender diverse clients seeking help for this syndrome.

CSBD controversies

Currently, classifying CSBD as an impulsive, compulsive, or addictive disorder remains controversial. For instance, in a review of papers on CSBD classification, Sassover and Weinstein (2022) assert there is insufficient data to conceptualize CSBD as an addictive disorder. Although this perspective is well intentioned, we contend that classification debates cannot progress without also testing theoretical models of CSBD. As noted elsewhere (Gola & Potenza, 2018; Prause, 2017), the most helpful course of action would be to test different conceptualizations of CSBD rather than debate its optimal classification.

Other debates concern the utility of specifiers for CSBD. Gola et al. (2022) aptly noted the possibility of including behavioral specifiers in the diagnosis of CSBD, such as a pornography subtype. Another possibility is to determine whether pornography use is better conceptualized as a separate disorder (Brand et al., 2022) rather than a CSBD specifier. However, the answer to these debates may be of little consequence to diverse populations if differential diagnoses for CSBD are not clarified first. Indeed, the unique sociocultural contexts of diverse populations may complicate the accurate assessment of CSBD and result in misdiagnosis. Moreover, inaccurate diagnoses may compromise the quality of health care diverse clients receive. To address this concern, we describe the sociocultural context of LGBTQ+ clients to inform culturally competent diagnosis of CSBD for these populations.

A primer on Meyer's Minority Stress Model

Meyer's (2003) Minority Stress Model and its applications to transgender persons (Bockting, Miner, Swinburne-Romine, Hamilton, & Coleman, 2013) asserts that LGBTQ+ populations endure stressors related to their stigmatized sexual or gender identity. The model describes two broad types of minority stressors: distal and proximal. Distal stressors are external events of prejudice, such as familial rejection or discrimination. Proximal stressors occur as internal processes in response to external events of prejudice, such as internalized homonegativity or anticipated discrimination (Meyer, 2003). Both proximal and distal stressors compromise the mental and physical health of LGBTQ+ people.

Based on the premises of minority stress theory, LGBTQ+ individuals may be disproportionately affected by CSBD due to proximal and distal stressors. This proposition has received support in a study from Pachankis et al. (2015) documenting associations between experiences of discrimination (i.e., distal stressor) and sexual compulsivity via internalized homonegativity (i.e., proximal stressor) and emotion dysregulation among men who have sex with men (MSM). Several researchers have also found that compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) may be more prevalent among MSM (Bőthe et al., 2018; Paz, Griffiths, Demetrovics, & Szabó, 2019), suggesting that this population may be disproportionately affected by this syndrome. While these findings have yet to be fully considered in other sexual and gender diverse populations (Griffin et al., 2021), minority stressors may confer greater risk for CSBD among LGBTQ+ clients broadly, and therefore, culturally competent research and clinical consideration is critical. We assert three factors jeopardizing the accurate assessment of this syndrome in LGBTQ+ clients: conflation of minority stressors and CSBD symptoms, clinician bias, and methodological flaws in CSBD measurement.

Minority stress and CSBD differential diagnosis

Thus far, differential diagnosis considerations for CSBD have focused on the moral incongruence (MI) rule-out, which states that distress entirely related to moral disapproval of sexual urges and behaviors should not be diagnosed as CSBD. This rule-out is based on research indicating that moral disapproval of one's sexual behavior may lead clients to self-perceive symptoms of CSBD (Grubbs, Perry, Wilt, & Reid, 2019). However, MI has been almost exclusively examined in Christian, heterosexual, cisgender, and White American samples of pornography users, limiting the generalizability of this rule-out criterion (Jennings, Lyng, Gleason, Finotelli, & Coleman, 2022). Furthermore, we contend that minority stress related distress and impairment (MSRDI) experienced by LGBTQ+ clients may be mistaken for CSBD, leading to misdiagnosis, and one possible remedy for this issue could be further consideration of how proximal and distal minority stress complicate assessment of CSBD in these populations.

Proximal and distal stressors

Proximal minority stressors should be ruled out in the diagnosis of CSBD. The MI rule-out may represent a highly relevant proximal stressor for LGBTQ+ clients and is likely a form of internalized homo- or transnegativity, given that LGBTQ+ clients often internalize stigma society directs toward their diverse identities (Bockting et al., 2013; Meyer, 2003), and thus morally disapprove of their sexual impulses, thoughts, or behaviors. For clients with diverse sexual attractions, MI may stem from disapproval of the sexual activity itself (e.g., watching pornography), aspects of the sexual activity related to diverse sexuality (e.g., watching gay pornography), or disapproval of both. In LGBTQ+ populations, clinicians should determine whether MI-related distress is attributed to internalized stigma, as such a presentation requires consideration related to the sociocultural context of LGBTQ+ clients. Table 1 presents other examples of proximal stressors that may be misinterpreted as CSBD symptoms.

Table 1.

Examples of minority stressors complicating the diagnosis of CSBD

CSBD symptom criteria (ICD-11) Minority Stress Model
Proximal Stressors Distal Stressors
1A. Engaging in repetitive sexual activities has become a central focus of the person's life to the point of neglecting health and personal care or other interests, activities, and responsibilities. LGBTQ+ clients may experience internalized stigma that leads them to view their sexual thoughts or behavior as repetitive to the point of neglecting other aspects of life. Exposure to interpersonal victimization or familial rejection may predispose LGBTQ+ clients to view their sexuality as harmful toward aspects of their life.
1B. The person has made numerous unsuccessful efforts to control or significantly reduce repetitive sexual behavior. LGBTQ+ client efforts to reduce diverse sexual behavior or urges may reflect internalized stigma, rather than CSBD. The LGBTQ+ client's family encourages them to date partners of the opposite gender. The client attempts to appease their family by attending conversion therapy to reduce their attractions to partners of the same gender.
1C. The person continues to engage in repetitive sexual behavior despite adverse consequences (e.g., repeated relationship disruption, occupational consequences, negative impact on health). An LGBTQ+ client may hide their sexual orientation due to a fear of rejection from their therapist. Ruling out MSRDI without this information is difficult. LGBTQ+ clients may be fired from their workplace due to their sexual or gender identity. Occupational consequences are due to MSRDI, not CSBD.
1D. The person continues to engage in repetitive sexual behavior even when the individual derives little or no satisfaction from it. LGBTQ+ clients may report less sexual satisfaction when there is intense internalized disapproval of their sexual behavior. External events of prejudice contribute to the development of internalized stigma.
2. The pattern of failure to control intense, sexual impulses or urges and resulting repetitive sexual behavior is manifested over an extended period (e.g., 6 months or more) (Must be met) Distress or impairment arising from proximal stressors may last for 6 months and up to a lifetime. Distress or impairment arising from distal stressors may last for 6 months and up to a lifetime.
3. The pattern of repetitive sexual behavior causes marked distress or significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Must be met). Distress may be related to internalization of stigma and moral/religious disapproval of their behavior.

Rumination on experiences of discrimination may also be a source of MSRDI.
Impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other areas of functioning may be due to discriminatory attitudes rather than CSBD.
Note for rule out. Distress that is entirely related to moral judgments and disapproval about sexual impulses, urges, or behaviors is not enough to meet this requirement. A construct that may represent a specific form of internalized homo- or transnegativity for LGBTQ+ clients. This distress may be caused by experiences of discrimination or by institutional homonegativity.

Note. Abbreviations are minority stress related distress or impairment (MSRDI) and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+).

Distal stressors should also be ruled out in the diagnosis of CSBD. As an example, one CSBD symptom involves continually engaging in repetitive sexual behavior despite adverse consequences (e.g., occupational consequences, relationship disruption). However, LGBTQ+ clients may experience relationship disruption or occupational consequences due to family or colleagues holding prejudicial attitudes toward their diverse sexuality or gender. To avoid misdiagnosis of CSBD among LGBTQ+ clients, clinicians must accurately identify whether adverse consequences associated with sexual behavior arise from prejudice (i.e., distal stressor) or dysregulated sexual behavior. Table 1 presents other examples of distal stressors that may be misinterpreted as CSBD symptoms.

Addressing minority stress and CSBD in LGBTQ+ clients

Given concerns with minority stress related distress and impairment (MSRDI), clinicians may encounter three broad presentations in the diagnosis of CSBD among LGBTQ+ clients:

  1. The LGBTQ+ client meets CSBD criteria and evinces no MSRDI that would invalidate a diagnosis.

  2. MSRDI is the primary source of distress for the LGBTQ+ client and they do not meet CSBD symptom criteria.

  3. The LGBTQ+ client meets CSBD symptom criteria and is experiencing MSRDI.

To accurately diagnose CSBD among LGBTQ+ clients, clinicians should distinguish among these three clinical presentations (see Fig. 1). Notably, treatment will require specialized consideration of an LGBTQ+ client's needs, as MSRDI can also contribute to the development of CSBD symptomology (Pachankis et al., 2015). In the present paper, we illustrate how MSRDI may be confused for CSBD in the diagnostic process, but it bears mention that MSRDI may also erode protective mechanisms and contribute to CSBD etiology, requiring the development of adapted therapeutic interventions targeting the specific needs of LGBTQ+ clients with CSBD (Pachankis, Soulliard, Morris, & van Dyk, 2022).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

CSBD differential diagnosis algorithm for LGBTQ+ clients

Citation: Journal of Behavioral Addictions 11, 2; 10.1556/2006.2022.00028

In addition to considering LGBTQ+ identity and minority stress in the broader case conceptualization, addressing issues of MI (i.e., proximal stressor) must radically differ for LGBTQ+ clients. One component of a current treatment for MI includes helping the client live in accord with their sexually restrictive values (Grubbs et al., 2019). For instance, a client struggling with MI related distress involving pornography may receive therapy that helps them reduce their use. Using this approach with LGBTQ+ clients is reminiscent of conversion therapy, or therapy that aims to change a client's sexual or gender diversity. Conversion therapy is widely considered to be pathologizing, discriminatory, and harmful to LGBTQ+ clients (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004), and has been banned in many countries and US states (Movement Advancement Project, 2021). Thus, it would be more appropriate to utilize affirmative treatment approaches to validate the client's sexual attractions, behaviors, and identity (Drescher, 2015; Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004).

Concerns with clinician bias

Clinician bias in the diagnosis of CSBD among LGBTQ+ clients remains a concerning possibility. Clinicians must distinguish between symptoms of CSBD and various distal and proximal minority stressors. Further complicating this clinical situation is the possibility of heteronormative bias among clinicians, leading them to perceive normative LGBTQ+ experiences as CSBD symptoms. Although little research has examined this proposition, other studies have documented clinician bias in diagnosing borderline personality disorder in LGBTQ+ clients (Eubanks-Carter, C., 2006; Rodriguez-Seijas, Morgan, Zimmerman, 2020). Studies have also identified connections between social anxiety, characterized by a fear of being negatively evaluated by others, and condomless sex among gay and bisexual men (Hart & Heimberg, 2005; Wang & Pachankis, 2016). Clinicians exhibiting bias could interpret condomless sex as a symptom of CSBD rather than a client's concern with experiencing rejection from sexual partners. Lastly, some clinicians may underdiagnose CSBD in sexually diverse clients if they tend to view symptoms of CSBD as normative and biologically based in these populations (Klein, Briken, Schröder, & Fuss, 2019). Although little consideration has been given to clinician bias in the diagnosis of CSBD among LGBTQ+ clients, we suspect that such bias may contribute to inaccurate diagnosis.

Concerns with measurement

Similar to CSBD symptom criteria, measurement of CSB in research contexts has rarely considered the possibility of conflating minority stressors with dysregulated sexual behavior. For instance, one of the oldest measures of sexual addiction (a CSBD related construct), the Sexual Addiction Screening Test (SAST; Carnes, 1989), considers secret sexual outlets and sexual activities creating problems with families as possible indicators of sexual addiction. However, LGBTQ+ individuals may hide their sexual activity because of a rational fear of rejection or discrimination from family, friends, colleagues, and their religious community (Moe, Finnerty, Sparkman, & Yates, 2015). Contemporary measures of CSB related constructs commonly used among gay and bisexual men, such as the Sexual Compulsivity Scale (Hook, Hook, Davis, Worthington, & Penberthy, 2010), also do not account for possible minority stress confounds. Therefore, it is difficult to know whether past studies reporting on CSB related constructs among LGBTQ+ populations are capturing dysregulated sexual behavior, MSRDI, or both.

To address this concern, researchers should measure minority stressors that might complicate the accurate diagnosis or measurement of CSBD among LGBTQ+ groups. A similar issue is that measurement invariance for CSBD criteria and common measures of CSB have not been well established for LGBTQ+ people, though some initial research has explored this area (Bőthe et al., 2018). Future research is needed to develop these neglected areas and promote precision in the measurement of CSBD in LGBTQ+ populations.

Future research recommendations

The sociocultural context of LGBTQ+ clients merit further consideration in CSBD research and clinical studies. Most notably, understanding of CSBD research thus far has been primarily limited to the GB in LGBTQ+. Future research should examine this syndrome in other sexual and gender diverse populations. In particular, transgender and queer populations have seldom received attention in the CSB research literature. As discussed elsewhere (Griffin et al., 2021), intersectionality considerations surrounding sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity, and other demographic variables remain understudied and merit further investigation. Lastly, in addition to addressing concerns with clinician bias and the conflation of MSRDI and CSBD, future consideration should be given to adapting CSBD interventions to be LGBTQ+ affirming.

Conclusion

Both clinicians and researchers should carefully consider the sociocultural context of LGBTQ+ clients in the assessment and treatment of CSBD. The risk of misdiagnosis of CSBD in these populations may be particularly high for LGBTQ+ clients, given the confounding influences of multiple minority stress variables, clinician bias, and measurement concerns. Treatments should prioritize LGBTQ+ affirming care to avoid pathologizing sexual and gender diverse clients. These practices would aid in the accurate diagnosis and treatment of CSBD in LGBTQ+ clients and promote culturally competent care for these populations.

Funding sources

None.

Author's contribution

Concept and design: Todd L. Jennings, Neil Gleason, & Shane W. Kraus; Drafting the article: Todd L. Jennings, Neil Gleason, & Shane W. Kraus; Revising it critically for important intellectual content: Todd L. Jennings, Neil Gleason, & Shane W. Kraus; Final approval of the version to be published: Todd L. Jennings, Neil Gleason, & Shane W. Kraus.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

  • Bockting, W. O. , Miner, M. H. , Swinburne-Romine, R. E. , Hamilton, A. , & Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma, mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the US transgender population. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 943951. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301241.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bőthe, B. , Bartók, R. , Tóth-Király, I. , Reid, R. C. , Griffiths, M. D. , Demetrovics, Z. , & Orosz, G. (2018). Hypersexuality, gender, and sexual orientation: A large-scale psychometric survey study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(8), 22652276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1201-z.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brand, M. , Rumpf, H. J. , Demetrovics, Z. , Müller, A. , Stark, R. , King, D. L. , … Potenza, M. N. (2022). Which conditions should be considered as disorders in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) designation of “other specified disorders due to addictive behaviors”? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 150159. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00035.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carnes, P. (1989). Contrary to love: Helping the sexual addict. Hazelden Publishing.

  • Drescher J. (2015). Out of DSM: Depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 5(4), 565575. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eubanks-Carter, C. , & Goldfried, M. R. (2006). The impact of client sexual orientation and gender on clinical judgments and diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(6), 751770. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20265.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gola, M. , Lewczuk, K. , Potenza, M. N. , Kingston, D. A. , Grubbs, J. B. , Stark, R. , & Reid, R. C. (2022). What should be included in the criteria for compulsive sexual behavior disorder? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 160165. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00090.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gola, M. , & Potenza, M. N. (2018). The proof of the pudding is in the tasting: Data are needed to test models and hypotheses related to compulsive sexual behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 13231325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1167-x.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffin, K. R. , Way, B. M. , & Kraus, S. W. (2021). Controversies and clinical recommendations for the treatment of compulsive sexual behavior disorder. Current Addiction Reports, 8(4), 546555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-021-00393-5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grubbs, J. B. , Perry, S. L. , Wilt, J. A. , & Reid, R. C. (2019). Pornography problems due to moral incongruence: An integrative model with a systematic review and meta -analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(2), 397415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1248-x.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hart, T. A. , & Heimberg, R. G. (2005). Social anxiety as a risk factor for unprotected intercourse among gay and bisexual male youth. AIDS and Behavior, 9(4), 505512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-005-9021-2.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hook, J. N. , Hook, J. P. , Davis, D. E. , Worthington Jr, E. L. , & Penberthy, J. K. (2010). Measuring sexual addiction and compulsivity: A critical review of instruments. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36(3), 227260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926231003719673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jennings, T. L. , Lyng, T. , Gleason, N. , Finotelli, I. , & Coleman, E. (2022). Compulsive sexual behavior, religiosity, and spirituality: A systematic review. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(4), 854878. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00084.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Klein, V. , Briken, P. , Schröder, J. , & Fuss, J. (2019). Mental health professionals’ pathologization of compulsive sexual behavior: Does clients’ gender and sexual orientation matter? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(5), 465. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000437.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kraus, S. W. , Krueger, R. B. , Briken, P. , First, M. B. , Stein, D. J. , Kaplan, M. S. , … Reed, G. M. (2018). Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD-11. World Psychiatry, 17(1), 109110. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20499.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meyer I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moe, J. L. , Finnerty, P. , Sparkman, N. , & Yates, C. (2015). Initial assessment and screening with LGBTQ clients: A critical perspective. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9(1), 3656. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2014.997332.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Movement Advancement Project . (2021, September 27). Equality maps: Conversion therapy laws. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pachankis, J. E. , & Goldfried, M. R. (2004). Clinical issues in working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(3), 227246. https://doi.org/10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.45.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pachankis, J. E. , Rendina, H. J. , Restar, A. , Ventuneac, A. , Grov, C. , & Parsons, J. T. (2015). A minority stress—emotion regulation model of sexual compulsivity among highly sexually active gay and bisexual men. Health Psychology, 34(8), 829. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000180.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pachankis, J. E. , Soulliard, Z. A. , Morris, F. , & van Dyk, I. S. (2022). A model for adapting evidence-based interventions to Be LGBQ-affirmative: Putting minority stress principles and case conceptualization into clinical research and practice. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2021.11.005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Paz, G. , Griffiths, M. , Demetrovics, Z. , & Szabó, A. (2019). Role of personality characteristics and sexual orientation in the risk for sexual addiction among Israeli men: Validation of a Hebrew sex addiction Scale. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 3246. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00109-x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prause N. (2017). Evaluate models of high-frequency sexual behaviors already. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(8), 22692274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1078-2.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rodriguez-Seijas, C. , Morgan, T. A. , Zimmerman, M. (2020). Is there a bias in the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder among lesbian, gay, and bisexual patients? Assessment, 28(3), 724738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120961833.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sassover, E. , & Weinstein, A. (2022). Should compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) be considered as a behavioral addiction? A debate paper presenting the opposing view. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 166179. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00055.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, K. , & Pachankis, J. E. (2016). Gay-related rejection sensitivity as a risk factor for condomless sex. AIDS and Behavior, 20(4), 763767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1224-6.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • World Health Organization . (2018). International classification of diseases for mortality and morbidity statistics(11th Revision). Retrieved from https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bockting, W. O. , Miner, M. H. , Swinburne-Romine, R. E. , Hamilton, A. , & Coleman, E. (2013). Stigma, mental health, and resilience in an online sample of the US transgender population. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 943951. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301241.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bőthe, B. , Bartók, R. , Tóth-Király, I. , Reid, R. C. , Griffiths, M. D. , Demetrovics, Z. , & Orosz, G. (2018). Hypersexuality, gender, and sexual orientation: A large-scale psychometric survey study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(8), 22652276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1201-z.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brand, M. , Rumpf, H. J. , Demetrovics, Z. , Müller, A. , Stark, R. , King, D. L. , … Potenza, M. N. (2022). Which conditions should be considered as disorders in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) designation of “other specified disorders due to addictive behaviors”? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 150159. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00035.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carnes, P. (1989). Contrary to love: Helping the sexual addict. Hazelden Publishing.

  • Drescher J. (2015). Out of DSM: Depathologizing homosexuality. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 5(4), 565575. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eubanks-Carter, C. , & Goldfried, M. R. (2006). The impact of client sexual orientation and gender on clinical judgments and diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(6), 751770. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20265.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gola, M. , Lewczuk, K. , Potenza, M. N. , Kingston, D. A. , Grubbs, J. B. , Stark, R. , & Reid, R. C. (2022). What should be included in the criteria for compulsive sexual behavior disorder? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 160165. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00090.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gola, M. , & Potenza, M. N. (2018). The proof of the pudding is in the tasting: Data are needed to test models and hypotheses related to compulsive sexual behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(5), 13231325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1167-x.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffin, K. R. , Way, B. M. , & Kraus, S. W. (2021). Controversies and clinical recommendations for the treatment of compulsive sexual behavior disorder. Current Addiction Reports, 8(4), 546555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-021-00393-5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grubbs, J. B. , Perry, S. L. , Wilt, J. A. , & Reid, R. C. (2019). Pornography problems due to moral incongruence: An integrative model with a systematic review and meta -analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(2), 397415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1248-x.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hart, T. A. , & Heimberg, R. G. (2005). Social anxiety as a risk factor for unprotected intercourse among gay and bisexual male youth. AIDS and Behavior, 9(4), 505512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-005-9021-2.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hook, J. N. , Hook, J. P. , Davis, D. E. , Worthington Jr, E. L. , & Penberthy, J. K. (2010). Measuring sexual addiction and compulsivity: A critical review of instruments. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36(3), 227260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926231003719673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jennings, T. L. , Lyng, T. , Gleason, N. , Finotelli, I. , & Coleman, E. (2022). Compulsive sexual behavior, religiosity, and spirituality: A systematic review. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(4), 854878. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2021.00084.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Klein, V. , Briken, P. , Schröder, J. , & Fuss, J. (2019). Mental health professionals’ pathologization of compulsive sexual behavior: Does clients’ gender and sexual orientation matter? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(5), 465. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000437.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kraus, S. W. , Krueger, R. B. , Briken, P. , First, M. B. , Stein, D. J. , Kaplan, M. S. , … Reed, G. M. (2018). Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder in the ICD-11. World Psychiatry, 17(1), 109110. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20499.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Meyer I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moe, J. L. , Finnerty, P. , Sparkman, N. , & Yates, C. (2015). Initial assessment and screening with LGBTQ clients: A critical perspective. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9(1), 3656. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2014.997332.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Movement Advancement Project . (2021, September 27). Equality maps: Conversion therapy laws. https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pachankis, J. E. , & Goldfried, M. R. (2004). Clinical issues in working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(3), 227246. https://doi.org/10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.45.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pachankis, J. E. , Rendina, H. J. , Restar, A. , Ventuneac, A. , Grov, C. , & Parsons, J. T. (2015). A minority stress—emotion regulation model of sexual compulsivity among highly sexually active gay and bisexual men. Health Psychology, 34(8), 829. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000180.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pachankis, J. E. , Soulliard, Z. A. , Morris, F. , & van Dyk, I. S. (2022). A model for adapting evidence-based interventions to Be LGBQ-affirmative: Putting minority stress principles and case conceptualization into clinical research and practice. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2021.11.005.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Paz, G. , Griffiths, M. , Demetrovics, Z. , & Szabó, A. (2019). Role of personality characteristics and sexual orientation in the risk for sexual addiction among Israeli men: Validation of a Hebrew sex addiction Scale. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 3246. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00109-x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Prause N. (2017). Evaluate models of high-frequency sexual behaviors already. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(8), 22692274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1078-2.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rodriguez-Seijas, C. , Morgan, T. A. , Zimmerman, M. (2020). Is there a bias in the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder among lesbian, gay, and bisexual patients? Assessment, 28(3), 724738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120961833.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sassover, E. , & Weinstein, A. (2022). Should compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) be considered as a behavioral addiction? A debate paper presenting the opposing view. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 166179. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2020.00055.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wang, K. , & Pachankis, J. E. (2016). Gay-related rejection sensitivity as a risk factor for condomless sex. AIDS and Behavior, 20(4), 763767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1224-6.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • World Health Organization . (2018). International classification of diseases for mortality and morbidity statistics(11th Revision). Retrieved from https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

Dr. Zsolt Demetrovics
Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University
Address: Izabella u. 46. H-1064 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36-1-461-2681
E-mail: jba@ppk.elte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®)
  • Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition
  • Social Sciences Citation Index®
  • Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition
  • Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • EBSCO
  • GoogleScholar
  • PsycINFO
  • PubMed Central
  • SCOPUS
  • Medline
  • CABI

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
5223
Journal Impact Factor 7,772
Rank by Impact Factor Psychiatry SCIE 26/155
Psychiatry SSCI 19/142
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
7,130
5 Year
Impact Factor
9,026
Journal Citation Indicator 1,39
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

Psychiatry 34/257

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
56
Scimago
Journal Rank
1,951
Scimago Quartile Score Clinical Psychology (Q1)
Medicine (miscellaneous) (Q1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health (Q1)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
11,5
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Clinical Psychology 5/292 (D1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health 20/529 (D1)
Medicine (miscellaneous) 17/276 (D1)
Scopus
SNIP
2,184

2020  
Total Cites 4024
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
6,756
Rank by Psychiatry (SSCI) 12/143 (Q1)
Impact Factor Psychiatry 19/156 (Q1)
Impact Factor 6,052
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year 8,735
Impact Factor
Journal  1,48
Citation Indicator  
Rank by Journal  Psychiatry 24/250 (Q1)
Citation Indicator   
Citable 86
Items
Total 74
Articles
Total 12
Reviews
Scimago 47
H-index
Scimago 2,265
Journal Rank
Scimago Clinical Psychology Q1
Quartile Score Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1
  Medicine (miscellaneous) Q1
Scopus 3593/367=9,8
Scite Score  
Scopus Clinical Psychology 7/283 (Q1)
Scite Score Rank Psychiatry and Mental Health 22/502 (Q1)
Scopus 2,026
SNIP  
Days from  38
submission  
to 1st decision  
Days from  37
acceptance  
to publication  
Acceptance 31%
Rate  

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
2 184
Impact Factor 5,143
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
4,346
5 Year
Impact Factor
5,758
Immediacy
Index
0,587
Citable
Items
75
Total
Articles
67
Total
Reviews
8
Cited
Half-Life
3,3
Citing
Half-Life
6,8
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00597
Article Influence
Score
1,447
% Articles
in
Citable Items
89,33
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,7294
Average
IF
Percentile
87,923
Scimago
H-index
37
Scimago
Journal Rank
1,767
Scopus
Scite Score
2540/376=6,8
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Cllinical Psychology 16/275 (Q1)
Medicine (miscellenous) 31/219 (Q1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health 47/506 (Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
1,441
Acceptance
Rate
32%

 

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 850 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2011
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem
Founder's
Address
H-1053 Budapest, Hungary Egyetem tér 1-3.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2062-5871 (Print)
ISSN 2063-5303 (Online)

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Zsolt DEMETROVICS

Assistant Editor(s): Csilla ÁGOSTON

Associate Editors

  • Joel BILLIEUX (University of Lausanne, Switzerland)
  • Beáta BŐTHE (University of Montreal, Canada)
  • Matthias BRAND (University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany)
  • Luke CLARK (University of British Columbia, Canada)
  • Daniel KING (Flinders University, Australia)
  • Ludwig KRAUS (IFT Institute for Therapy Research, Germany)
  • H. N. Alexander LOGEMANN (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Astrid MÜLLER (Hannover Medical School, Germany)
  • Marc N. POTENZA (Yale University, USA)
  • Hans-Jurgen RUMPF (University of Lübeck, Germany)
  • Attila SZABÓ (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Róbert URBÁN (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Aviv M. WEINSTEIN (Ariel University, Israel)

Editorial Board

  • Max W. ABBOTT (Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand)
  • Elias N. ABOUJAOUDE (Stanford University School of Medicine, USA)
  • Hojjat ADELI (Ohio State University, USA)
  • Alex BALDACCHINO (University of Dundee, United Kingdom)
  • Alex BLASZCZYNSKI (University of Sidney, Australia)
  • Judit BALÁZS (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Kenneth BLUM (University of Florida, USA)
  • Henrietta BOWDEN-JONES (Imperial College, United Kingdom)
  • Wim VAN DEN BRINK (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Gerhard BÜHRINGER (Technische Universität Dresden, Germany)
  • Sam-Wook CHOI (Eulji University, Republic of Korea)
  • Damiaan DENYS (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Jeffrey L. DEREVENSKY (McGill University, Canada)
  • Naomi FINEBERG (University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom)
  • Marie GRALL-BRONNEC (University Hospital of Nantes, France)
  • Jon E. GRANT (University of Minnesota, USA)
  • Mark GRIFFITHS (Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom)
  • Anneke GOUDRIAAN (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Heather HAUSENBLAS (Jacksonville University, USA)
  • Tobias HAYER (University of Bremen, Germany)
  • Susumu HIGUCHI (National Hospital Organization Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Japan)
  • David HODGINS (University of Calgary, Canada)
  • Eric HOLLANDER (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, USA)
  • Jaeseung JEONG (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea)
  • Yasser KHAZAAL (Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland)
  • Orsolya KIRÁLY (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Emmanuel KUNTSCHE (La Trobe University, Australia)
  • Hae Kook LEE (The Catholic University of Korea, Republic of Korea)
  • Michel LEJOXEUX (Paris University, France)
  • Anikó MARÁZ (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany)
  • Giovanni MARTINOTTI (‘Gabriele d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy)
  • Frederick GERARD MOELLER (University of Texas, USA)
  • Daniel Thor OLASON (University of Iceland, Iceland)
  • Nancy PETRY (University of Connecticut, USA)
  • Bettina PIKÓ (University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Afarin RAHIMI-MOVAGHAR (Teheran University of Medical Sciences, Iran)
  • József RÁCZ (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary)
  • Rory C. REID (University of California Los Angeles, USA)
  • Marcantanio M. SPADA (London South Bank University, United Kingdom)
  • Daniel SPRITZER (Study Group on Technological Addictions, Brazil)
  • Dan J. STEIN (University of Cape Town, South Africa)
  • Sherry H. STEWART (Dalhousie University, Canada)
  • Attila SZABÓ (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Ferenc TÚRY (Semmelweis University, Hungary)
  • Alfred UHL (Austrian Federal Health Institute, Austria)
  • Johan VANDERLINDEN (University Psychiatric Center K.U.Leuven, Belgium)
  • Alexander E. VOISKOUNSKY (Moscow State University, Russia)
  • Kimberly YOUNG (Center for Internet Addiction, USA)

 

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2022 0 0 0
Jul 2022 0 333 218
Aug 2022 0 187 125
Sep 2022 0 119 78
Oct 2022 0 185 147
Nov 2022 0 186 100
Dec 2022 0 6 4