Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T02:15:08.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Treatment of compulsive buying disorder: comparing the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy with person-centred experiential counselling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2020

Stephen Kellett*
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
Pippa Oxborough
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Chris Gaskell
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: S.Kellett@sheffield.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Outcome studies of the treatment of compulsive buying disorder (CBD) have rarely compared the effectiveness of differing active treatments.

Aims:

This study sought to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and person-centred experiential therapy (PCE) in a cross-over design.

Method:

This was an ABC single case experimental design with extended follow-up with a female patient meeting diagnostic criteria for CBD. Ideographic CBD outcomes were intensively measured over a continuous 350-day time series. Following a 1-month baseline assessment phase (A; 28 days; three sessions), CBT was delivered via 13 out-patient sessions (B: 160 days) and then PCE was delivered via six out-patient sessions (C: 63 days). There was a 99-day follow-up period.

Results:

Frequency and duration of compulsive buying episodes decreased during active treatment. CBT and PCE were both highly effective compared with baseline for reducing shopping obsessions, excitement about shopping, compulsion to shop and improving self-esteem. When the PCE and CBT treatment phases were compared against each other, few differences were apparent in terms of outcome. There was no evidence of any relapse over the follow-up period. A reliable and clinically significant change on the primary nomothetic measure (i.e. Compulsive Buying Scale) was retained over time.

Conclusions:

The study suggests that both CBT and PCE can be effective for CBD. Methodological limitations and suggestions for future CBD outcome research are discussed.

Type
Main
Copyright
© British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2020

Introduction

Compulsive buying disorder (CBD) is operationally defined as an impulsive control disorder (Robbins and Clark, Reference Robbins and Clark2015) characterised by persistent, excessive and impulsive consumerism (Müller et al., Reference Müller, Mitchell and de Zwaan2015). A prevalence meta-analysis has estimated a 4.9% pooled prevalence rate for CBD (Maraz et al., Reference Maraz, Griffiths and Demetrovics2015). Prevalence of CBD is also dependent on certain environmental factors: a market-based economy, easy access to a wide variety of goods, disposable income and consumerist values (Unger et al., Reference Unger, Papastamatelou, Yolbulan Okan and Aytas2014). Individuals with CBD describe a pre-occupation with shopping, increasing levels of urges or anxiety before purchasing and a sense of relief after purchase completion (Black, Reference Black2007). Shopping is shaped by positive and negative reinforcement contingencies and is used as a maladaptive strategy to improve mood (Lejoyeux and Weinstein, Reference Lejoyeux and Weinstein2010), cope with stress (Karim and Chaudhri, Reference Karim and Chaudhri2012), gain social approval/recognition (McQueen et al., Reference McQueen, Moulding and Kyrios2014) and to improve poor self-image (Roberts et al., Reference Roberts, Manolis and Pullig2014). The adverse consequences of CBD are large financial debts, legal issues, interpersonal difficulties, relationship problems and pronounced shame/guilt (McElroy et al., Reference McElroy, Keck and Phillips1995; Miltenberger et al., Reference Miltenberger, Redlin, Crosby, Stickney, Mitchell and Wonderlich2003; O’Guinn and Faber, Reference O’Guinn and Faber1989; Schlosser et al., Reference Schlosser, Black, Repertinger and Freet1994).

Despite the impact of CBD being typically negative, attempts to stop compulsive buying without help unfortunately typically tend to fail (Konkolý Thege et al., Reference Konkolý Thege, Woodin, Hodgins and Williams2015) and so treatment interventions have been developed. The current CBD treatment evidence base consists mainly of unscientific qualitative case reports, with a limited number of uncontrolled and controlled group designs. A range of modalities have been used to treat CBD including individual psychotherapy (Krueger, Reference Krueger1988; Winestine, Reference Winestine1985), family therapy (Park et al., Reference Park, Cho and Seo2006) and experiential therapy (Klontz et al., Reference Klontz, Bivens, Klontz, Wada and Kahler2008). The most tested approach to treating CBD is that of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) delivered both individually and also in groups, with the group version implementing a manualised approach. Two qualitative case studies (Braquehais et al., Reference Braquehais, Del Mar Valls, Sher and Casas2012; Marčinko and Karlović, Reference Marčinko and Karlović2005) described the effectiveness of CBT when integrated with anti-depressant treatment, with one further case report (Kellett and Bolton, Reference Kellett and Bolton2009) describing the durability of an effective CBT intervention on CBD. Four studies have examined the effectiveness of group CBT for CBD and found evidence of significant improvements following treatment, across both uncontrolled and controlled methodologies (Filomensky and Tavares, Reference Filomensky and Tavares2009; Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Burgard, Faber, Crosby and de Zwaan2006; Mueller et al., Reference Mueller, Mueller, Silbermann, Reinecker, Bleich, Mitchell and de Zwaan2008; Müller et al., Reference Müller, Arikian, Zwaan and Mitchell2013).

Hague et al. (Reference Hague, Hall and Kellett2016) reviewed the CBD treatment evidence base to conclude that the majority of studies were of methodological poor quality, lacked active comparator conditions, inconsistently used standardised CBD outcome measures and generated high drop-out rates. Hague et al. (Reference Hague, Hall and Kellett2016) suggested that the integrity of the CBD outcome evidence base could be improved by completing better methodologically designed studies of routine practice. Therefore, the current study utilised single case experimental design (SCED; Barlow et al., Reference Barlow, Nock and Hersen2009) conducted in routine clinical practice. As clinical dilemmas arise from implementing methodologically rigorous but ethically suspect withdrawal designs (Barlow et al., Reference Barlow, Nock and Hersen2009), this study rather sought to implement an alternating treatment design (Manolov and Onghena, Reference Manolov and Onghena2018), with cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and person-centred experiential counselling (PCE) as treatment comparators. No previous SCEDs of the treatment of CBD have been completed, despite the calls for such research (Lourenço Leite et al., Reference Lourenço Leite, Pereira, Nardi and Silva2014). The study hypotheses were: (1) both CBT and PCE would be effective compared with baseline on ideographic measures, (2) CBT and PCE will be equally clinically effective on ideographic measures, (3) reliable and clinically significant reductions would occur on nomothetic outcome measures and (4) no relapse would occur.

Method

Design

Ethical approval for the conduct of the study was achieved (reference no. 029105). The current study utilised a cross-over ABC plus extended follow-up SCED. The duration of the baseline ‘A’ phase was 4 weeks (n = 28 daily measurements), consisting of three assessment sessions. The ‘B’ phase consisted of thirteen 50-minute CBT out-patient sessions that lasted for 23 weeks (n = 160 daily measurements). The ‘C’ phase entailed six 50-minute PCE out-patient sessions that lasted for 9 weeks (n = 63 daily measurements). The follow-up phase lasted for 14 weeks and there was a single session completed at the end of this phase (n = 99 daily measurements). There was no therapeutic contact during 3-month follow-up.

Diagnosis

The patient was assessed using the Minnesota Impulsive Disorders Interview (MIDI; Christenson et al., Reference Christenson, Faber and de Zwann1994) as there is clinical consensus that an accurate diagnosis of CBD requires direct clinical assessment (Black, Reference Black, Mueller and Mitchell2011). For CBD, the questions on the MIDI reflect the impulse control disorder criteria of increasing tension before shopping, followed by relief after purchase and then evaluates related distress and impairment. The patient’s MIDI screen was positive for CBD, but no other impulse control disorder. To ensure the validity of CBD diagnosis, three other clinical measurements were used: the CBD criteria developed by McElroy et al. (Reference McElroy, Keck, Pope, Smith and Strakowski1994), the Compulsive Buying Scale (CBS; Faber and O’Guinn, Reference Faber and O’Guinn1992) and the Compulsive Acquisition Scale (CAS; Frost et al., Reference Frost, Kim, Morris, Bloss, Murray-Close and Steketee1998). At assessment, the patient scored in the caseness range on the CBS and the CAS-buy (see Table 3) and met the McElroy et al. (Reference McElroy, Keck, Pope, Smith and Strakowski1994) diagnostic criteria, due to describing shopping as being (a) uncontrollable, (b) time-consuming and resulting in forensic and financial difficulties and (c) not occurring only in the context of hypomanic or manic symptoms.

Participant

The patient was a 40-year old married women, who was seeking psychological help with CBD due to forensic problems. The patient had created a complex scam in which clothes would be purchased at a discount and returned for a full refund. The companies involved had become aware of this and the patient was arrested and charged by the police, and also banned from her local shopping mall. The patient reported a great sense of shame in relation to the arrest and ban, and this was the prompt for seeking psychological help. The patient had not received any prior psychological interventions and was not prescribed any medication throughout the course of the study. The patient was employed in a full-time position in retail banking.

The patient was brought up in a nuclear family and had one identical twin sister and two other sisters. She denied any major attachment issues with her parents or developmental trauma. The patient stated however that there was a ‘family culture’ of shopping and that shopping had always been modelled to her as a desirable and pleasant activity. The patient reported a sense of dependency and merger with her twin, which had been apparent across her life. The focus of this merger was particularly in relation to shopping and buying clothes. The patient stated that this was the ‘glue’ in the relationship with the sister, and that they would frequently shop together and compulsively buy for each other. Boundy (Reference Boundy and Benson2000) defined the sub-criteria of ‘co-dependent compulsive buying’, with excessive shopping being driven by the desire to buy for others, in the effort to win approval, love and also to avoid possible imagined rejection.

The patient described a lifelong pre-occupation with shopping and buying. The patient reported that she tended to spend most of her spare time shopping, that she tended to shop on a daily basis (i.e. ‘it’s a way of life’) and that shopping was her sole hobby (i.e. described as ‘all consuming’). The patient would spend long periods of time buying online, trying on clothes and returning them. The patient tended to also minimise and hide her buying at other times and would shamefully sneak purchased clothes and objects into the home and hide them from her husband. The patient reported using shopping as a means to control her emotions, and as a ‘tonic’ if she were feeling depressed or anxious. She stated that she experienced a climbing sense of tension (with associated feelings of physiological arousal) whilst shopping, urges to buy and a sense of a buzz on the point of purchase (and an associated change in her physiological arousal; stated as ‘a massive rush’). She would at times buy multiple versions of the same item to experience the arousal state in the same shopping trip. When shopping for long periods, the participant stated that she would enter a dissociated state and would walk around ‘as if in a daze’. The patient stated that she often spent significant amounts of her income on clothes and that she had large credit card debts. She stated that she felt helpless in the face of the overwhelming impulse to buy. She stated that shopping was a source of esteem from others, as others would relate to her as an ‘expert shopper’ and so would also be sent shopping to buy for her family and friends. She stated that the shopping had fused with her identity stating that ‘shopping is a big part of who I am’.

Treatment: descriptions and competency assessments

The opportunity to create an alternating treatment ABC SCED arose because the patient was waiting for the court hearing in relation to the alleged crime, and wanted to continue to access psychological support up to that point. Therefore, this provided the opportunity to change the treatment from CBT to PCE in order to provide support (but also change modality), with the follow-up phase being in the post-court period. The 13 sessions of CBT were based on the CBT treatment manual for CBD (Mitchell, Reference Mitchell, Müller and Mitchell2011). The first unit (CBD psychoeducation) was replaced by an idiosyncratic case formulation based on the Kellett and Bolton (Reference Kellett and Bolton2009) model, which was able to therefore formulate the role of the co-dependency (see Fig. 3 in the online Supplementary material). The remaining units consisted of: (2) problem buying consequences, (3) cue awareness, (4) cash management, (5) responses in terms of thoughts, feelings and behaviour, (6) cognitive restructuring, (7) cues and chains, (8) self-esteem, (9) exposure and (10) relapse prevention. The endings unit was not completed due to the patient progressing onto PCE. The sessions all started with creating a collaborative agenda, had the formulation visible, had a change method related to the unit and had homework exercises based on session content. The PCE (Elliott et al., Reference Elliott, Greenberg, Watson, Timulak, Freire and Lambert2013) was based on Rogerian concepts and therefore concerned the application of being congruent with the client, the therapist providing the client with unconditional positive regard, showing empathetic understanding and enabling depth emotional processing. Homework stopped during the PCE. Six sessions of PCE were delivered until the court hearing. Each active treatment phase was supervised by a different supervisor (i.e. a CBT supervisor supervised the CBT phase and a counsellor supervised the PCE phase).

Ideographic measures and analysis strategy

Seven ideographic measures were collected via a daily diary. The first three measures concerned behavioural indices of compulsive buying: (1) amount of money spent that day compulsively shopping, (2) duration of time that day spent compulsively shopping, and (3) duration of time that day spent talking about shopping with sister. The remaining four ideographic measures [scored on a 1 (not at all) to 9 (all the time) point Likert scales] regarded compulsive buying cognitions and emotions. Item 4 was a measure of shopping obsessions (‘shopping has been on my mind today’), item 5 was a measure of affective excitement (‘whilst shopping or thinking about shopping today, I felt a buzz’) and item 6 was a measure of strength of shopping compulsions (‘I felt compelled to shop today’) and item 7 measured CBD fusion with self-esteem (‘shopping or thinking about shopping made me feel good about me’).

Seven time-series graphs with baseline median trend lines fitted across the treatment and follow-up phases were created for the idiographic measures. Effectiveness of the CBT and PCE on ideographic outcomes was assessed using a range of non-overlap statistics: the percentage of data points exceeding the median (PEM; Ma, Reference Ma2006), the percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND; Parker et al., Reference Parker, Hagan-Burke and Vannest2007) and non-overlap of all pairs (NAP; Parker and Vannest, Reference Parker and Vannest2009). Outcomes from the CBT, PCE and follow-up phases were combined and compared with baseline and PCE and CBT were also compared against each other. Non-overlap outcomes were interpreted as <70% (questionable/ineffective treatment), 70–90% (moderately effective treatment) and >90% (highly effective treatment; Wendt, Reference Wendt2009). Tau-U statistics were also used to assess difference between baseline and prospective phases. Tau-U refers to a family of statistics based on Kendall’s non-parametric, rank order coefficient (Brossart et al., Reference Brossart, Laird and Armstrong2018). Tau statistics were calculated for baseline trend, the difference between two phases (τAvsB provides a p-value identical to a Mann–Whitney test) and τ(AvsB)-Atrend that compares phases whilst adjusting for baseline trend. If the baseline trend is not significant, then τAvsB should be used over τ(AvsB)-Atrend (Brossart et al., Reference Brossart, Laird and Armstrong2018). Non-overlap statistics, tau-U and scatter plots were all performed using the Single Case Analysis plug-in (SCAN; Wilbert and Lueke, Reference Wilbert and Lueke2019) through R (R Core Team, 2019). If baseline phases on ideographic outcomes were stable, then τAvsB is a better index of outcome, as opposed to τ(AvsB)-Atrend. Binary logistic regression was also used to predict incidences of compulsive buying.

Nomothetic measures and analysis strategy

Five measures (two CBD and three generic outcome) were completed at baseline, end of CBT, end PCE and end of follow-up, as follows.

Compulsive Buying Scale (CBS; Faber and O’Guinn, Reference Faber and O’Guinn1992)

The CBS is a 7-item valid and reliable clinical screen for CBD and scores of <–1.34 index presence of compulsive buying (Faber and O’Guinn, Reference Faber and O’Guinn1992).

Compulsive Acquisition Scale (CAS; Frost et al., Reference Frost, Kim, Morris, Bloss, Murray-Close and Steketee1998)

The CAS is an 18-item measure of acquisition compulsions consisting of two subscales: compulsions to buy items and acquire free items. The CAS has been found to be both valid and reliable (Faraci et al., Reference Faraci, Perdighe, Monte and Saliani2018; Frost et al., Reference Frost, Steketee and Williams2002).

Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck et al., Reference Beck, Steer, Ball and Ranieri1996a,b)

The BDI-II is a 21-item valid and reliable measure of the severity and intensity of depressive symptoms with scores coded as follows (Beck et al., Reference Beck, Steer, Ball and Ranieri1996a,b): minimal depression (0–13), mild depression (14–19), moderate depression (20–28) and severe depression (29–63).

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32 (IIP-32; Barkham et al., Reference Barkham, Hardy and Startup1996)

The IIP-32 is a measure of interpersonal functioning producing eight subscales (four that are done ‘too much’ and four that are ‘difficult to do’). The IIP-32 has good psychometric reliability and validity (Hughes and Barkham, Reference Hughes and Barkham2005).

Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, Reference Derogatis1993)

The BSI is a 53-item measure of psychological distress incorporating three global indices: global severity index (GSI), positive symptom distress index (PSDI) and positive symptom total (PST). The BSI has good internal and test–re-test reliability, convergent, construct and discriminant validity (Derogatis, Reference Derogatis1993).

Nomothetic outcomes were evaluated using the Jacobson and Truax (Reference Jacobson and Truax1991) index of reliable and clinically significant change. The reliable change index (RCI) tests for the degree of change necessary in an outcome score for that change to be considered reliable, rather than that expected by chance. Change is classed as being clinically significant when outcomes shift from ‘caseness’ to ‘non-caseness’. Concurrent reliable and clinically significant change is classified as evidence of ‘recovery’ in practice-based contexts (Barkham et al., Reference Barkham, Stiles, Connell and Mellor-Clark2012). RCI calculations could not be conducted on the CBS due to the lack of necessary psychometric information (i.e. specifically, lack of any test–re-test evidence). The CBS was the primary nomothetic outcome measure for the study, due to this measure being commonly used to evaluate CBD outcomes in the treatment literature.

Results

The results are divided into two sections. Section 1 describes the ideographic outcomes and section 2 details the nomothetic outcomes. Time series plots for the ideographic measures are clustered into behavioural (see Fig. 1) and cognitive/emotional (see Fig. 2). Table 1 provides the means and SD for ideographic measures according to phase of the study, Table 2 contains the results from the non-overlap analyses and Table 3 the nomothetic outcomes.

Figure 1. Behavioural CBD outcomes by phase of study.

Figure 2. Cognitive and emotional CBD outcomes by phase of study.

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for idiographic measure by phase of study

Table 2. Non-overlap results for ideographic outcomes by phase of study

*<.05, **<.001. 1Highly effective treatment; 2moderately effective treatment.

Table 3. Nomothetic outcomes by phase of study

RCI-1 is the assessment to end of CBT comparison, RCI-2 is the CBT to end of PCE comparison and RCI-3 is the PCE to follow-up comparison. Scores in bold indicate scores in clinical caseness at that point in time. Norms obtained from Frost et al., Reference Frost, Steketee and Williams2002 (CAS); Mueller et al., Reference Mueller, Mitchell, Crosby, Gefeller, Faber, Martin, Bleichef, Glaesmerg, Exnerh and Zwaanaet2010 and Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Burgard, Faber, Crosby and de Zwaan2006 (CBS community and clinical); Beck et al., Reference Beck, Steer and Brown1996b (BDI-II); Francis et al., Reference Francis, Rajan and Turner1990 (BSI; UK population norms); Derogatis, Reference Derogatis1993 (BSI; US out-patient norms); Barkham et al., Reference Barkham, Hardy and Startup1996 (IIP-32; UK norms). CBS, Compulsive Buying Scale; CAS, Compulsive Acquisition Scale; BDI-II, Beck Depression Inventory-II; BSI, Brief Symptom Inventory; GSI, Global Severity Index; PDSI, Positive Symptom Distress Index; PST, Positive Symptom Total; IIP-32, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32.

Behavioural ideographic CBD outcomes

In terms of incidence of compulsive buying, this occurred on 39.29% of baseline days (i.e. 11/28 days), 16.88% of CBT phase days (i.e. 27/160 days), 15.87% of PCE phase days (i.e. 10/63 days) and 13.13% of follow-up days (i.e. 13/99 days). In terms of incidence of talking about shopping, this occurred on 42.85% of baseline days (i.e. 12/28 days), 19.38% of CBT phase days (i.e. 31/160 days), 6.35% of PCE phase days (i.e. 4/63 days) and 3.03% of follow-up days (i.e. 3/99 days). Time spent compulsive buying was approximately 40 minutes per episode during the baseline, which fell to 30 minutes per episode during the active treatment phases and approximately 20 minutes per episode during follow-up days.

The binary logistic regression that predicted compulsive buying incidence (i.e. whether compulsive buying occurred or not) from baseline compared with CBT, PCE and follow-up phases was significant, χ 2 (3) = 8.93, p = .03, with the Nagelkerke pseudo R² (indicating the goodness of fit of the logistic regression model) being .042 (i.e. explaining 42% of the variance in incidents of compulsive buying). The model correctly predicted 82.60% of incidents of compulsive buying. CBT had a significant effect on reduced incidence of compulsive buying [Wald χ² (1) = 6.92, p = .009], as did PCE [Wald χ² (1) = 5.65, p = .017] and follow-up [Wald χ² (1) = 8.87, p = .003]. The odds in favour of not compulsively buying were .31 times higher during CBT, .29 times higher during PCE and .23 times higher during follow-up.

Baseline phases for behavioural ideographic CBD outcomes were stable in terms of money spent (τ = –.042, p = .752), shopping duration (τ = .037, p = .782) and time spent talking about shopping (τ = –.138, p = .304). PAND and some NAP results illustrated that CBT and PCE were highly effective in reducing the money spent compulsively, the time spent shopping and also the time spent talking about shopping. When the follow-up phase was compared with baseline on these behavioural indices, then there was evidence of a highly effective intervention. The Taua-b results between baseline and all other phases was significant for reduced money spent (τ = –.227, p = .046) and reduced time spent talking about shopping (τ = –.339, p = .003), but not for time actually spent compulsively shopping (τ = –.1.54, p = .176). When the PCE and the CBT phases were compared on behavioural ideographic outcomes, there were few apparent differences on the non-overlap results.

Cognitive and emotional ideographic CBD outcomes

There were stable baselines with regard to shopping obsessions (τ = .138, p = .304), shopping excitement (τ = –.048, p = .722), shopping compulsions (τ = .013, p = .921) and the sense of CBD fusion (τ = .037, p = .782). NAP, PEM and PAND results illustrate that CBT and PCE were moderate to highly effective interventions for reducing shopping obsessions, shopping compulsions, excitement about shopping and sense of fusion with shopping. When the follow-up phase was compared with baseline, then a moderately to highly effective intervention had taken place. Taua-b statistics between baseline and all other phases were significant for reduced shopping obsessions (τ = –.718, p = <.001), shopping compulsions (τ = –.601, p = <.001), shopping excitement (τ = –.705, p = <.001) and shopping fusion (τ = –.6.51, p = <.001). When the PCE and the CBT phases were compared, there were again few differences on the ideographic non-overlap results. The exception to this trend was for shopping obsessions, which indexed a significant reduction during PCE when compared with CBT (τ = –0.235, p = .006)

Nomothetic CBD outcomes

The CBS scores indicate that the participant no longer met the criteria for CBD at the end of CBT, improved on this progress following completion of PCE and improved again at follow-up. There was a reliable reduction in compulsive buying (CAS-Buy) comparing assessment with end of CBT, no further change to end of PCE and then a further reliable reduction at follow-up. There were no reliable or clinically significant reductions in the compulsive acquisition of free objects (CAS-Free) over time. The CAS-Buy results would suggest recovery by the end of the follow-up period.

Nomothetic mental health outcomes

There was a reliable reduction in depression (BDI-II) from assessment to end of CBT, but a reliable increase in depression at the end of PCE. Baseline to follow-up comparisons indexed a reliable and clinically significant reduction in depression. There was no reliable reduction in psychological distress (BSI-GSI) from assessment to end of CBT. There was an observed increase in distress comparing the end of CBT with the end of PCE, at which the patient reached clinical caseness. There was a reliable and clinically significant reduction in psychological distress from PCE termination to follow-up, with the patient no longer reaching caseness on the BSI-GSI at follow-up. There was a reliable increase in interpersonal problems (IIP-32) from assessment to end of CBT, and then no further change from end of CBT to the end of PCE, and end of PCE to final follow-up. The BDI-II and BSI-GSI results would suggest recovery by the end of the follow-up period.

Discussion

This has been the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of CBT for CBD with a SCED, with the method containing both a comparative cross-over treatment phase and an extended follow-up phase to add to the internal validity of the study (Barlow and Hersen, Reference Barlow and Hersen1984). This research adds to and extends the extant CBT evidence base, which has previously tended to focus on evaluations of group treatments, and the results are in line with the positive outcomes described for CBT (Hague et al., Reference Hague, Hall and Kellett2016). The results demonstrated a moderately to highly effective intervention for cognitive and emotional ideographic CBD outcomes and a less effective intervention for the behavioural ideographic CBD outcomes. In terms of a very basic analysis of outcome, then the time spent compulsively shopping had halved when the baseline was compared with the follow-up. It has been argued that complete abstinence or elimination of CBD behaviours is unrealistic, with treatment therefore focusing more on the management of problematic shopping and spending behaviours (Benson and Eisenach, Reference Benson and Eisenach2013). The only moderately effective financial results could be viewed with clinical concern, as 89% of CBD patients report excessive ongoing CBD-related debt (Schlosser et al., Reference Schlosser, Black, Repertinger and Freet1994).

The reductions to shopping obsessions, excitement associated with shopping, shopping compulsions and CBD fusion with self-esteem were founded on stable baselines, suggesting that change was therefore not purely the result of therapist contact. Stable baselines are a key component of SCED (Barlow et al., Reference Barlow, Nock and Hersen2009; Morley, Reference Morley2018), as unstable baselines undermine confidence in any subsequent changes detected in response to intervention or withdrawal (McMillan and Morley, Reference McMillan, Morley, Barkham, Hardy and Mellor-Clark2010). With impulse control disorders such as CBD (Robbins and Clark, Reference Robbins and Clark2015), then perhaps it is better to expect a pattern of stable instability, rather than pure stability during baseline phases. The introduction of the case formulation appeared to signal a sudden insight gain for the participant that was translated into behavioural and cognitive changes. The therapeutic impact of case formulation has been observed previously in SCED studies (for an example, see Curling et al., Reference Curling, Kellett, Totterdell, Parry, Hardy and Berry2018). It is worth noting that across all the ideographic outcome measures, there was no evidence of deterioration or relapse across the follow-up period. This suggests that durable CBD self-management skills had been learnt by the patient.

The CBD-specific nomothetic outcomes would suggest that the patient was in the community sample by the end of the follow-up period and therefore that clinically significant change had occurred. Across the nomothetic outcome measures of depression (BDI-II), psychological distress (BSI-GSI), symptom severity (BSI-PDSI) and interpersonal problems (IIP-32), it was observed that deterioration occurred at the end of the PCE phase. This deterioration seemed to reflect the external stress factors that the patient was experiencing during this period, but it is interesting to note that the intervention appeared to insulate the patient from concurrent CBD relapse. As stated, the opportunity to turn the study into an ABC design arose due to the fact that the patient had an impending court appearance and wanted to continue to access support during this period. It is therefore probable that these forensic problems resulted in the observed increases in depression, psychological distress, symptom severity and interpersonal problems during this period. There was evidence of recovery on these measures by the end of the follow-up period.

Study limitations

As this study was a SCED, then the results may not easily generalise to other CBD patients. As all the measures were self-report, then outcomes may have been unduly influenced by response and/or social disability bias (Rosenman et al., Reference Rosenman, Tennekoon and Hill2011). The study could be criticised for the length of the follow-up period. The CBS (i.e. the primary nomothetic outcome measure) has been criticised on the grounds of item face validity (Edwards, Reference Edwards1993). The lack of a follow-up administration of the MIDI is a study limitation (Christenson et al., Reference Christenson, Faber and de Zwann1994). Considering the dissociation described during compulsive shopping episodes, then adding in an ideographic and nomothetic measure of dissociation would have been useful. There is an obvious issue with the ordering of phases, as it was not possible to clarify if the observed outcomes would have been different if the order of treatments had been reversed, (i.e. ‘B’ = PCE and ‘C’ = CBT). The decision to deliver the CBT first was based on awareness of the evidence base for CBT (Hague et al., Reference Hague, Hall and Kellett2016) and so to withhold CBT as the first phase of treatment would have been potentially unethical. Ninan et al. (Reference Ninan, McElroy, Kane, Knight, Casuto, Rose, Marsteller and Nemeroff2000) conducted a trial of fluvoxamine in treating compulsive buying and reported a high placebo-response rate that was ascribed to the behavioural benefits of keeping a daily diary. This is also known as the mere measurement effect (Morwitz and Fitzsimons, Reference Morwitz and Fitzsimons2004). The baselines in the current study were stable, however, which would mitigate against this effect being apparent in the current study.

Future research

The CBD outcome evidence base would benefit from conducting a case series with a counterbalanced ABC design. An ABC with counterbalancing entails half of the participants being randomly assigned to receive B (i.e. CBT) and then C (i.e. PCE), whilst the other half receives C (i.e. PCE) and then B (i.e. CBT). Introducing counterbalancing for the order of treatment delivery helps to rule out alternative explanations of outcome (McMillan and Morley, Reference McMillan, Morley, Barkham, Hardy and Mellor-Clark2010). Whilst this is a methodologically appropriate means of investigating CBD outcome, it also raises ethical issues concerning withholding a potentially effective intervention, or removing a treatment that is already working (Rizvi and Nock, Reference Rizvi and Nock2008). The more recently developed Pathological Buying Screener (Mueller et al., Reference Mueller, Trotzke, Mitchell, de Zwann and Brand2015) may be a better choice of primary nomothetic outcome measure in future studies, due to its more extensive psychometric evaluation. Future research could also collect data from informants other than the patient to reduce threats from response and/or social disability bias to the internal validity of the study (e.g. Kellett and Totterdell, Reference Kellett and Totterdell2013).

Conclusion

As the first SCED evaluating the treatment of CBD, this study has strengthened the CBD treatment evidence base, by providing an intricate longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of CBT against an active PCE comparator. For the CBD treatment outcome evidence base to progress, the methodological quality of such small scale practice-based designs needs to improve, and also be used as a foundation from which to design more controlled clinical trials (Hague et al., Reference Hague, Hall and Kellett2016). Measuring change to financial functioning appears vital in any evaluation of CBD treatment outcome. Overall, active intervention in this study was effective, but there were few differences between the modalities. The next research step for the CBT CBD evidence base might be to conduct a SCED in which behavioural and cognitive change methods are systematically introduced or removed, in order to assess their relative contribution. The evidence base for intervention in CBD clearly requires more work across all the psychotherapeutic modalities.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465820000521

Acknowledgements

With thanks to the participant for collecting the data.

Financial support

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

Barkham, M., Hardy, G.E., & Startup, M. (1996). The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-32: a short version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 2135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01159.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkham, M., Stiles, W. B., Connell, J., & Mellor-Clark, J. (2012). Psychological treatment outcomes in routine NHS services: what do we mean by effectiveness? Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 85, 116. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.2011.02019.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change. London, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K. & Hersen, M. (2009). Single Case Experimental Designs (3rd edm). New York, NY, USA: Pearson Press.Google Scholar
Beck, A., Steer, R., Ball, R., & Ranieri, W. (1996a). Comparison of Beck Depression Inventories-IA and-II in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 588597. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_13 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996b). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX, USA: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Benson, A. L., & Eisenach, D. A. (2013). Stopping overshopping: an approach to the treatment of compulsive-buying disorder. Journal of Groups in Addiction & Recovery, 8, 324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1556035X.2013.727724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, D. W. (2007). A review of compulsive buying disorder. World Psychiatry, 6, 1418.Google ScholarPubMed
Black, D. W. (2011). Assessment of compulsive buying. In Mueller, A., & Mitchell, J. E. (eds), Compulsive Buying: Clinical Foundations and Treatment (pp. 2749). NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boundy, D. (2000). When money is the drug. In Benson, A. L. (ed), I shop, Therefore I Am: Compulsive Buying and the Search for Self (pp. 326). Northtrade, NJ, USA: Aronson.Google Scholar
Brossart, D. F., Laird, V. C., & Armstrong, T. W. (2018). Interpreting Kendall’s Tau and Tau-U for single-case experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braquehais, M., Del Mar Valls, M., Sher, L., & Casas, M. (2012). Pathological collecting: a case report. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 11, 8183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, G. A., Faber, J. R., & de Zwann, M. (1994). Compulsive buying: descriptive characteristics and psychiatric comorbidity. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 511.Google ScholarPubMed
Curling, L., Kellett, S., Totterdell, P., Parry, G., Hardy, G., & Berry, K. (2018). Treatment of obsessive morbid jealousy with cognitive analytic therapy: an adjudicated hermeneutic single-case efficacy design evaluation. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 91, 95116. doi: 10.1111/papt.12151 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). BSI Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, Scoring, and Procedure Manual (4th edn). Minneapolis, MN, USA: National Computer Systems.Google Scholar
Edwards, E. A. (1993). Development of a new scale for measuring compulsive buying behaviour. Financial Counselling and Planning, 4, 6785.Google Scholar
Elliott, R., Greenberg, L. S., Watson, J. C., Timulak, L., & Freire, E. (2013). Research on humanistic-experiential psychotherapies. In Lambert, M. J. (ed), Bergin & Garfield’s Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (6th edn). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Faber, R., & O’Guinn, T. (1992). A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 459469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faraci, P. D., Perdighe, C. M., Monte, C., & Saliani, A. (2018). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the compulsive acquisition scale (CAS). Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 15, 4249.Google Scholar
Filomensky, T. Z., & Tavares, H. (2009). Cognitive restructuring for compulsive buying. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 31, 7778. doi: 10.1590/S1516-44462009000100018 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, V. M., Rajan, P., & Turner, N. (1990). British community norms for the Brief Symptom Inventory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 115116. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1990.tb00857.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frost, R. O., Kim, H. D., Morris, C., Bloss, C., Murray-Close, M., & Steketee, G. (1998). Hoarding, compulsive buying and reasons for saving. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 657664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Williams, L. (2002). Compulsive buying, compulsive hoarding, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behavior Therapy, 33, 201214. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(02)80025-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hague, B., Hall, J., & Kellett, S. (2016). Treatments for compulsive buying: a systematic review of the quality, effectiveness and progression of the outcome evidence. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 5, 379394. doi: 10.1556/2006.5.2016.064 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, J., & Barkham, M. (2005). Scoping the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, its derivatives and short forms: 1988–2004. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 475496. doi: 10.1002/cpp.466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining change in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 1219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karim, R., & Chaudhri, P. (2012). Behavioral addictions: an overview. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44, 517. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2012.662859 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellett, S., & Bolton, J. (2009). Compulsive buying: a cognitive-behavioural model. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 16, 8399. doi: 10.1002/cpp.585 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellett, S. & Totterdell, P. (2013). Taming the green eyed monster: temporal responsivity to cognitive behavioural and cognitive analytic therapy for morbid jealousy. Psychology and Psychotherapy; Theory, Research and Practice, 86, 5269. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.2011.02045.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klontz, B. T., Bivens, A., Klontz, P. T., Wada, J., & Kahler, R. (2008). The treatment of disordered money behaviors: results of an open clinical trial. Psychological Services, 5, 295308. doi: 10.1037/1541-1559.5.3.295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konkolý Thege, B., Woodin, E. M., Hodgins, D. C., & Williams, R. J. (2015). Natural course of behavioral addictions: a 5-year longitudinal study. BMC Psychiatry, 15. doi: 10.1186/s12888-015-0383-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, D. (1988). On compulsive shopping and spending: a psychodynamic inquiry. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 42, 574584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lejoyeux, M., & Weinstein, A. (2010). Compulsive buying. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36, 248253. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2010.493590 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lourenço Leite, P., Pereira, V. M., Nardi, A. E., & Silva, A. C. (2014). Psychotherapy for compulsive buying disorder: a systematic review. Psychiatry Research, 219, 411419. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.05.037 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, H. (2006). An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single-subject researches: percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification, 30, 598612. doi: 10.1177/0145445504272974 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manolov, R., & Onghena, P. (2018). Analyzing data from single-case alternating treatments designs. Psychological Methods, 23, 480504. doi: 10.1037/met0000133 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maraz, A., Griffiths, M. D., & Demetrovics, Z. (2015). The prevalence of compulsive buying: a meta-analysis. Addiction, 111, 408419. doi: 10.1111/add.13223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marčinko, D., & Karlović, D. (2005). Oniomania – successful treatment with Fluvoxamine and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy. Psychiatria Danubina, 17, 97100.Google ScholarPubMed
McElroy, S. L., Keck, P. E., & Phillips, K. A. (1995). Kleptomania, compulsive buying, and binge-eating disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 56, 1426.Google ScholarPubMed
McElroy, S. L., Keck, P. E. Jr, Pope, H. G. Jr, Smith, J. M. & Strakowski, S. M. (1994). Compulsive buying: a report of 20 cases. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 242248.Google ScholarPubMed
McMillan, D. & Morley, S. (2010). The quantitative single-case design as a research strategy for practice-based evidence. In Barkham, M., Hardy, G. E., & Mellor-Clark, J. (eds), Developing and Delivering Practice-Based Evidence: A Guide for the Psychological Therapies (pp. 109138). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQueen, P., Moulding, R., & Kyrios, M. (2014). Experimental evidence for the influence of cognitions on compulsive buying. Journal of Behavioural and Therapeutic Experimental Psychiatry, 45, 496501. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.07.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miltenberger, R. G., Redlin, J., Crosby, R., Stickney, M., Mitchell, J., Wonderlich, S., … & Smyth, J. (2003). Direct and retrospective assessment of factors contributing to compulsive buying. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 3, 19. doi: 10.12740/PP/44010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, J., Burgard, M., Faber, R., Crosby, R., & de Zwaan, M. (2006). Cognitive behavioural therapy for compulsive buying disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 18591865. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.12.009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, J. E. (2011). Compulsive buying disorder group treatment manual. In Müller, A. & Mitchell, J. E. (eds), Compulsive Buying. Clinical Foundations and Treatment (pp. 169278). New York, NY, USA: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Morley, S. (2018). Single-Case Methods in Clinical Psychology: A Practical Guide. London, UK: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Morwitz, V. G., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2004). The mere-measurement effect: why does measuring intentions change actual behavior? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 12. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, A., Mitchell, J. E., Crosby, R. D., Gefeller, O., Faber, R. J., Martin, A., Bleichef, S., Glaesmerg, H., Exnerh, C., & Zwaanaet, M. (2010). Estimated prevalence of compulsive buying in Germany and its association with sociodemographic characteristics and depressive symptoms. Psychiatry Research, 180, 137142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, A., Mueller, U., Silbermann, A., Reinecker, H., Bleich, S., Mitchell, J., & de Zwaan, M. (2008). A randomized, controlled trial of group cognitive-behavioral therapy for compulsive buying disorder: post treatment and 6-month follow-up results. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69, 11311138. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v69n0713 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, A., Trotzke, P., Mitchell, J. E., de Zwann, M., & Brand, D. (2015). The pathological buying screener; development and psychometric properties of a new screening instrument of pathological buying symptoms. Plos One, 10, 119. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141094 Google Scholar
Müller, A., Arikian, A., Zwaan, M., & Mitchell, J. (2013). Cognitive-behavioural group therapy versus guided self-help for compulsive buying disorder: a preliminary study. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20, 2835. doi: 10.1002/cpp.773 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müller, A., Mitchell, J. E., & de Zwaan, M. (2015). Compulsive buying. American Journal of Addiction, 24, 132137. doi:10.1111/ajad.12111 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ninan, P. T., McElroy, S. L., Kane, C. P., Knight, L. S., Casuto, S. E., Rose, F. A., Marsteller, C. & Nemeroff, B. (2000). Placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine in the treatment of patients with compulsive buying. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 20, 362366. doi: 10.1097/00004714-200006000-00012 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Guinn, T. C., & Faber, R. J. (1989). Compulsive buying: a phenomenological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 147157. doi: 10.1086/209204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, T., Cho, S., & Seo, J. (2006). A compulsive buying case: a qualitative analysis by the grounded theory method. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 239249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357367. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): an alternative to PND. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 194204. doi: 10.1177/00224669070400040101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2019). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from: https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rizvi, S., & Nock, M. (2008). Single-case experimental designs for the evaluation of treatments for self-injurious and suicidal behaviors. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 38, 498510. doi: 10.1521/suli.2008.38.5.498 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, J. A., Manolis, C., & Pullig, C. (2014). Contingent self-esteem, self-presentational concerns, and compulsive buying. Psychology and Marketing, 31, 147160. doi: 10.1002/mar.20683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, T. W., & Clark, L. (2015). Behavioral addictions. Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 30, 6672. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2014.09.005 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenman, R., Tennekoon, V., & Hill, L. G. (2011). Bias in self-reported data. International Journal of Behavioural and Healthcare Research, 2, 320332. doi: 10.1504/IJBHR.2011.043414 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlosser, S., Black, D. W., Repertinger, S., & Freet, D. (1994). Compulsive buying: demography, phenomenology, and comorbidity in 46 subjects. General Hospital Psychiatry, 16, 205212. doi: 10.1016/0163-8343(94)90103-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unger, A., Papastamatelou, J., Yolbulan Okan, E., & Aytas, S. (2014). How the economic situation moderates the influence of available money on compulsive buying of students – a comparative study between Turkey and Greece. Journal of Behavioural Addictions, 3, 173181. doi: 10.1556/JBA.3.2014.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, O. (2009). Calculating effect sizes for single-subject experimental designs: an overview and comparison. Paper presented at The Ninth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Wilbert, J., & Lueke, T. (2019). Scan: single-case data analyses for single and multiple baseline designs. Retrieved from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=scan Google Scholar
Winestine, M. (1985). Compulsive shopping as a derivative of childhood seduction. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 54, 7072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Behavioural CBD outcomes by phase of study.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Cognitive and emotional CBD outcomes by phase of study.

Figure 2

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for idiographic measure by phase of study

Figure 3

Table 2. Non-overlap results for ideographic outcomes by phase of study

Figure 4

Table 3. Nomothetic outcomes by phase of study

Supplementary material: File

Kellett et al. supplementary material

Figure 3

Download Kellett et al. supplementary material(File)
File 26.7 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.