Cognitive profiles of addictive behaviors: Evidence from work addiction, gaming disorder, and cannabis use disorder

Poster Session E - Monday, March 9, 2026, 2:30 – 4:30 pm PDT, Fairview/Kitsilano Ballrooms

Zsuzsanna Viktória Pesthy^1,2,3 (zsuzsanna.pesthy@gmail.com), Krisztina Berta^1,2,3, Ágnes Zsila¹, Teodóra Vékony⁴, Dezső Németh^4,5,6, Bernadette Kun¹; ¹Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary, ²Doctoral School of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, ³Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, HUN-REN Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, ⁴Gran Canaria Cognitive Research Center, Department of Education and Psychology, Atlántico Medio University, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, ⁵Centre de Recherche en Neurosciences de Lyon, INSERM, CNRS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CRNL U1028 UMR5292, Bron, France, ⁶BML-NAP Research Group, Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University & Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

Cognitive impairments have been widely reported across both substance-related and behavioral addictions; however, it remains unclear to what extent different addictive behaviors share common cognitive profiles. Direct, profile-based comparisons across addictions are still scarce. Addressing this gap, the present study examines cognitive profiles across addictive behaviors compared to non-addicted individuals, focusing on work addiction (WA), Gaming Disorder (GD), and Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD). In a sample of 245 participants, risk for WA, GD, and CUD was assessed via self-report questionnaires, while executive functions were measured using Go/No-Go (inhibitory control), Counting Span, Digit Span, n-back (working memory) and Card Sorting tasks (cognitive flexibility). Latent profile analysis identified four addiction profiles: Low Addiction (LA), WA-focused, GD-focused, and CUD-focused. BHC and R3STEP analyses revealed profile-specific cognitive differences. The WA profile showed poorer cognitive flexibility than the LA profile and poorer inhibitory control than the CUD profile. Working memory deficits were most pronounced in the GD profile, which performed worse in simple working memory than both the LA and WA profiles, and worse in complex working memory than the LA profile. Overall, distinct cognitive profiles emerged across addiction types, suggesting that WA is more closely related to reduced cognitive flexibility, while GD is characterized by working memory deficits. This pattern underscores both shared and disorder-specific cognitive mechanisms, contributing to a nuanced understanding of behavioral and substance-related addictions. Funding: The study was supported by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (Grant number: FK134807).

Topic Area: EXECUTIVE PROCESSES: Other