ArticlePloS one2026
Cognitive flexibility, impulsivity, and compulsivity in problematic consumption behaviours.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Different studies have identified cognitive inflexibility, impulsivity and compulsivity in substance use and gambling disorder, but it is unclear whether these deficits are present in other possible addictive behaviours. In this study, we evaluated cognitive inflexibility, as measured by the Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task (PRLT), impulsivity across UPPS-P model and the compulsivity in regular gamblers, buyers, video gamers, consumers of pornography and control group. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the five groups, revealing higher scores across several impulsivity and compulsivity domains in the buyers group compared to the other groups. On the overall measure of cognitive flexibility using the PRLT, buyers performed worse than gamers and pornography users, suggesting a relative disadvantage in adapting to changing reward contingencies even before trial-level learning patterns were examined. To further evaluate patterns of cognitive flexibility across groups, a GLME model was developed. The results showed that phase-group interactions were generally weak, and none of the contrasts related to reversal differed between groups. This indicates that the cost of adapting to contingency reversals was similar across all five groups, with no evidence that any particular group would exhibit greater inflexibility during reversal phases. Finally, the findings show that impulsivity and compulsivity can manifest themselves differently in these activities, which has implications for the development of more personalised intervention strategies that take into account both the nature of the disorder and the specific cognitive deficits involved.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.