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.]

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe