New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Hoarders Have Their Own Category of Disorder

A recent study finds evidence for why hoarders might be considered separate from those suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Some people turn their homes into packrat middens. Such hoarding was thought to be a type of obsessive-compulsive disorder, OCD. But in the most recent diagnostic manual of psychological disorders, hoarding is proposed to be a unique condition—it’s now thought to be more about avoiding making decisions about possessions than a general obsession with them.  

In a recent study, scientists compared the brain activity of hoarders with that of those with OCD, while the subjects were deciding whether to keep or toss their own junk mail and the junk mail of others.

Ownership did not affect the brain activity or choices of those with OCD.  But the hoarders were different. Their decision-making brain circuit was quiet when contemplating others’ mail, but became overactive for decisions about their own mail. Not surprisingly, hoarders kept significantly more of their own mail than the OCD group did. The study is in the Archives of General Psychiatry.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Hoarders’ self-ratings of indecisiveness correlated with the amount of activity in brain circuits related to exaggerated perception of the risk of a wrong decision. The researchers suggest that hoarding behavior has its own specific symptoms and should be treated differently than OCD.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe