8/12/2019 Models of Addiction Introduction to the Special Issue

1/3

jrnal of Abnormal Psychology Copyright1988by the American Psychological Association,IncB8Vol.97, No. 2,115-117 0021-843X/88/$00.75

Models of Addiction:Introductionto theSpecialIssueTimothyB. Baker

University ofWisconsinMadisonThis Special Issue contains articles thathighlightempirical approaches to addiction that

haveclear theoretical relevanceaswellasarticles that present significant theoretical perspec-tiveson addiction. This collectionreflectsthe implicit assumption that types ofaddictionaremore similar than dissimilar. The characteristics of drug exposure that promote physical de-pendence, the occurrence of tolerance, the associative elicitation of tolerance, the time courseofrelapsetodrug use,thephenomenologyofdrug urgesorcravings,theprecipitantsofrelapse,the obsessive concern with securing and using drugs are all commonalities among addictivedisorders that underscore thefactthat addiction is expressed through universal motivationalmechanisms and processes. Diverse addictive disorders are phenotypically similar becausetheirmotivational basesaresimilar;if not inparticular, theninprinciple.

The selections in this Special Issuereflecta set of assumptions that I see as promising areasforfutureresearchandtheorizing.

The first area concerns the application of traditional motivational models and concepts toaddictive disorders. For many years, theorizing about addictive disorders has been based onthe implicit assumption that addictionis amotivational phenomenonsuigeneris(to use theterm, appropriately enough, thatwas afavoriteofAbraham Wikler;Jaffe, 1982).Ibelieve thatthe field is nowbenefitingfroma reanalysis predicated on the belief that motivational princi-plesrelevantto thepursuitofpowerful nonpharmacological incentivesarerelevantto thepursuitofpowerfulpharmacological incentives.Ibelieve thatasignificantprecipitantofthisreanalysis wasSolomonandCorbit's(1973)opponent-process modelofacquired motivation,whichparsimoniously accountedformajor phenotypiccharacteristicsofboth pharmacologi-callyand nonpharmacologically motivated behaviors. This reanalysis iswellrepresented inthis volume.Wise'sarticle concerns possible neurophysiological mechanisms involved in thepositiveandnegativereinforcingeffectsofpsychomotor stimulant drugs.Cox andKlinger'sarticle comprisesabroad, integrative incentive modelforconceptualizing motivational influ-ences that determine drug (alcohol) use. Niaura, Rohsenow,Binkoff, Monti, Abrams, andPedrazareview considerable data on the antecedents and consequences of drug use, concen-tratingespecially on the behavioral,verbal/attitudinal,andpsychophysiologicalresponses elic-itedbydrug cues. They then evaluate several motivational modelsacquired drive models(i.e.,withdrawal, compensatory response models), a simple incentive model (eschewing com-plexcognitive processes), and a complex motivational model (emphasizing outcome expecta-tions about druguse)ontheir abilitytoaccountfor therevieweddata.Finally, VuchinichandTucker's contribution reviews dataon theextenttowhichdrug (alcohol)use is afunctionofthe availability of both drug and alternative reinforcers.Because Vuchinich andluckeradoptarather ascetic,operantapproachtoidentifyingthedeterminantsofdrug choice behav-ior,their contributionstandswith respecttotraditional motivational theoryasVoltaire's writ-ingsstand to ecclesiastic exegeses. Their articleidentifiesimportant environmental determi-nantsofdruguse andimplicitly questionsthenecessityofelaborate mentalwaystationsontheroadtoaccountingfordrugusevariance.

Thesecond areaforfutureresearchandtheorizing deals with cognitiveorinformation pro-cessingmodelsofaddiction. Perhaps becauseof thecognitive revolutioninpsychologyas awhole,orperhaps becauseof theprofound influenceof thewritingsandresearch ofAlanMarlatt, modern addiction models arerifewith expectations, attributions, and outcomeevalu-ations. Thiscan beseenin themotivation modelsof Cox andKlingerand ofNiauraetal.,which,consistentwithcontemporary motivation theories (Sorrentino& Higgins,1986),em-phasizecognitive mediators.

Threearticlesinthisissue place the evaluation of cognitive mechanisms in addiction at115

8/12/2019 Models of Addiction Introduction to the Special Issue

2/3

116 TIMOTHY B.BAKER

center stage.One isSteeleandJosephs'scontribution,whichpresents evidencethat alcoholmayexertanxiolyticeffectsbyreducing cognitive processing capacity.Chassin,Mann,andSher's article examines whetheraninformation processing style,reflected inheightenedself-awareness(Hull,1981),is related to adolescent drinking behavior or drinking problems. Fi-nally,the contribution by Cooper and George reports a path analytic model for assessing therelativecontributionsofdifferentfactorstoabusive drinking.Inthis article,theauthorsshowhowa cognitive variable such asexpectanciescan be evaluated with respect to its direct andindirecteffectson abusive drinking. The Cooper and George article is noteworthy because itappraises a cognitive variable in the context of noncognitivefactorsthatinfluenceaddiction.Accurate estimates of theinfluenceof cognitive mediators seem most likely when they can beevaluatedinconjunction with important pharmacologicalandbehavioral variables.

The third area covered in this Special Issue concerns interpersonal/social context. Althoughresearchershavelong recognized that drug use habits are acquired and maintained within aninterpersonalorsocial context, until recently they havenotdevisedeffectivemeansforexplor-ingtheinfluenceofsuch factors.Twoarticlesinthis issue present empiricalreportsaddressingtherelation between social contextanddrug use. JacobandLeonard'sarticle explorestherelation betweenstyleof alcohol use and marital interaction patterns. Mosbach and Leven-thal's study concernstheextenttowhich membershipinpeer social groupsisrelatedtodruguseamong adolescents. These two studies are innovativemethodologicallybecauseJacobandLeonard's study involved direct assessment of marital interaction in the context of alcoholconsumption, whereas the Mosbach andLeventhalstudy examined drug use patterns as theyarerelatedtoself-described peer group membership.

The final area covered in this issue dealswithgenetics. Increasing research attention is nowbeingfocusedon geneticinfluenceson both alcohol consumption and the consequences ofalcohol consumption. Searles's article criticallyreviewsthemajorstudies pointingto ageneticinfluenceonalcoholism. More important,hemodels variouswaysinwhich environmentalandgeneticinfluencesmightworkjointly,and heencouragesus tothink more creatively abouthowenvironmentalfactorsmightinfluence alcohol consumption andalcoholism and howsuchfactorsmay beassessed. Curiously, genetic studiesmayeventuallyofferthebest encour-agementfor athoroughgoing, innovative explorationofsubtle environmentalinfluencesondrinking behavior.

The contributions of this Special Issue have great relevanceforthe assessment and treatmentofaddictive disorders. Iwillmerely list a few themes that Ifoundto be of special relevance.First, severalof thecontributions emphasizetheroleofappetitive drugeffectsinmotivatingdruguseevenin addicted organisms. This departsfromearlier models of drug motivationthat stressed the reduction ofaversivewithdrawal symptoms as the core motivation foraddic-tivedrug use. Whatare thetreatment implicationsof anaddiction model that emphasizesthedirect, appetitive actions of drugs? First, the presence versus absence of drugs in the bodyshouldhaveprofoundimplicationsfor thenatureofdrug motivation. Conceivably,thepersoncurrentlyexperiencing pleasurable drugeffectsmay be relatively immune to concerns aboutpotential untoward consequences, may be especially primed to redose with the drug, mayattribute various positive events to the drug, and so on. Therefore, not only might appetitivedrugeffectsserveas apowerfulincentivefordrug use,but thedirectexperienceoftheseeffects,in theformofpositiveaffective states,mayinfluencethenatureofinformation processingabout drugs, the sorts of cues that increase drug use likelihood, and so on.

Not onlydoesthis perspectiveinformtheclinician thattheintoxicatedandabstinentaddictaremotivationally distinct organisms,but italso suggests that justas theaddictmayneedtobe taught how to cope with negativeaffects,he or she may also need to be taught how to achieveanddeal with positiveaffective states.

Second, although someof thecontributions emphasize that direct, appetitive drugeffectsaremotivationallysignificantin addiction, there is little disagreement that pathological drugusereflectsanaffectmanagement strategy, thatis,that drugs have profoundaffectiveconse-quencesandthat addiction severityispositively relatedtousing drugstocope withorinfluencenegativeaffect.

8/12/2019 Models of Addiction Introduction to the Special Issue

3/3

INTRODUCTION 117

Acentral target of treatment strategies must be the interruption oralterationof the linkbetweennegativeaffectelicitation andelicitationofboth positive expectancies about drugeffectsanddrug-related attributionsaboutnegativeaffect( Ifeelunhappy becauseIhavenotsmoked ).Thetreatmentofaddictionappearstoinvolve teachingtheaddictordrug user,atmanylevels, that drugsareirrelevanttopain, anxiety,andsuffering.

Third, addiction occurs in themilieuexterne not in themilieu interne.Addiction occursintheenvironment,not in theliver, genes,orsynapse. Certainly drugs exerteffectson theliverand synapse, and certainly physiological systems must be understood in order to appreciatethe nature of addiction. However, an individual chooses to take drugs in the world. The likeli-hoodof aperson tryingadrugor eventuallybecoming addicted isinfluencedby his or herfriends, marital happiness, the variety and richness of alternatives to drug use, and so on. Anycomplete addiction treatment or prevention program must appraise drug use in the contextofan individual's generallifesituation, notjustin the context of those behaviors orattitudestemporally or situationally associated with drug use.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my tremendous debt to themanyknowledgeable, dedi-cated,andgenerous reviewerswhoassistedme in thepreparation ofthis issue.Icomeawayfromthis task withnew-foundrespectfor thevicissitudesofeditingandwith great admirationfortheabilityof somanyof thereviewers.

ReferencesHull,J. G.(1981).Aself-awarenessmodelof thecausesandeffectsofalcohol consumption.

JournalofAbnormalPsychology 90 586-600.Jaffe, J.(1982).Inmemoriam:AbrahamWikler,M. D. In L. S.Harris (Ed.),Problemsof

drug dependence[NIDAResearch MonographNo. 43].Washington,DC:U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice.

Solomon, R.S.,&Corbit, J. D.(1973).An opponent-process theoryofmotivation: II. Cigaretteaddiction.JournalofAbnormalBehavior 81 158-171.

Sorrentino,R.M.,&Higgins,E. T. (1986).Handbook o motivation andcognition.New\brk:GuilfordPress.

InconsistenciesandAggravations:WordProcessing Manuscriptsin APA Style

Ifsomeof therequirementsofAPAeditorialstyleandtyping format,asdescribedin thePubli-cation Manual conflict withthecapabilitiesofyour word-processingsystem,the APAJournalsOfficewould liketohearfromyou.We arereexaminingstyleandformatrequirementsin thelightof howeasyor howdifficult theyare toimplementbythose preparingmanuscriptsoncomputers orwordprocessors. Forexample, somesystems cannoteasilyplacethepagenumberundertheshorttitlein theupper-right cornerofeach page.If youhavehaddifficulties withthisrequirement or anyothers,wewould greatlyappreciateyourtakingthetimeto jotdown whichrequirementshavepresentedproblemsandwhat hardwareandsoftwaresystemsyou used topreparethe manuscript.Writeto LeslieCameron,Room710,APA, 1400 NorthUhleStreet,Arlington, Virginia22201.