Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS) Test

For readers wondering whether purchasing has become difficult to control, this self-report tool offers a structured way to examine recurring thoughts, emotional triggers, urges, and consequences. Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS) Test organizes those experiences into a result that highlights the apparent strength of the pattern. As a shopping addiction test, it can help clarify which themes feel most prominent in everyday life.

What This Assessment Explores

These questions focus on a pattern in which buying becomes mentally prominent, changes mood, escalates, resists attempts to reduce it, causes distress when blocked, or harms responsibilities and well-being. The intended reader is anyone examining purchasing habits, rather than someone judging a single isolated purchase.

Internal experiences, loss of control, and practical consequences are considered together. As a compulsive buying test, the result describes how strongly these themes appear in the respondent’s answers.

The displayed results provide two views:

• Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale (BSAS; Andreassen et al., 2015) runs from 0–28 and reports Low tendency (0–9), Moderate tendency (10–18), or High tendency (19–28).
• Addiction Classification runs from 0–7 and reports Low risk (0–3) or Elevated risk (4–7), with four or more Agree or Strongly Agree responses potentially indicating addiction.

Together, these summaries show both a graded tendency and a response-count signal.

Methodology and Evidence Base

Each item uses five ordered choices, from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. The answer pattern is summarized in the displayed severity score, while the separate classification counts responses marked Agree or Strongly Agree. The response labels alone do not establish any additional point assignment.

The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with the BSAS instrument described by Andreassen et al. (2015), rather than presented as a validated reproduction of every published administration. Zarate et al. (2023) examined how the seven items function across levels of problematic shopping, while Gomez et al. (2024) examined factor structure, stability, and measurement invariance.

Griffiths’s (2005) components model supplies a compatible biopsychosocial lens for linking salience, mood modification, escalation, withdrawal-like distress, conflict, and harmful consequences. It helps explain why the questions combine inner experiences with effects on daily functioning.

The original BSAS authors did not specify a universal diagnostic cutoff, and these results should therefore be read as descriptive rather than diagnostic. This shopping addiction questionnaire also depends on honest self-report: current mood, recent spending, shame, and self-awareness can influence answers, so context and response bias matter.