Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-18T21:18:30.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Different vulnerabilities for addiction may contribute to the same phenomena and some additional interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2008

Andrew James Goudie ,
Matt Field  and
Jon Cole
Andrew James Goudie
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. ajg@liverpool.ac.ukm.field@liverpool.ac.ukj.c.cole@liverpool.ac.uk
Matt Field
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. ajg@liverpool.ac.ukm.field@liverpool.ac.ukj.c.cole@liverpool.ac.uk
Jon Cole
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. ajg@liverpool.ac.ukm.field@liverpool.ac.ukj.c.cole@liverpool.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The framework for addiction offered by the target article can perhaps be simplified into fewer, more basic, vulnerabilities. “Impulsivity” covers a number of vulnerabilities, not just enhanced delay discounting. Real-world drug-use decisions involve both delay and probability discounting. The motivational salience of, and attentional bias for, drug cues may be related to a number of vulnerabilities. Interactions among vulnerabilities are of significance and complicate the application of this framework.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 445 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Field, M. & Eastwood, B. (2005) Experimental manipulation of attentional bias increases the motivation to drink alcohol. Psychopharmacology 183:350–57.Google Scholar
Field, M., Mogg, K. & Bradley, B. P. (2004) Eye movements to smoking-related cues: Effects of nicotine deprivation. Psychopharmacology 173:116–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, M., Mogg, K. & Bradley, B. P. (2005) Craving and cognitive biases for alcohol cues in heavy drinkers. Alcohol and Alcoholism 40:504–10.Google Scholar
Field, M., Santarcangelo, M., Sumnall, H., Goudie, A. & Cole, J. (2006) Delay discounting and the behavioural economics of cigarette purchases in smokers: The effects of nicotine deprivation. Psychopharmacology 186:255–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franken, I. H. A. (2003) Drug craving and addiction: Integrating psychological and neuropsychopharmacological approaches. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry 27:563–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giordano, L. A., Bickel, W. K., Loewenstein, G., Jacobs, E. A., Marsch, L. & Badger, G. J. (2002) Mild opioid deprivation increases the degree that opioid-dependent outpatients discount delayed heroin and money. Psychopharmacology 163(2):174–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, R. Z. & Volkow, N. D. (2002) Drug addiction and its underlying neurobiological basis: Neuroimaging evidence for the involvement of the frontal cortex. American Journal of Psychiatry 159:1642–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogarth, L. & Duka, T. (2006) Human nicotine conditioning requires explicit contingency knowledge: Is addictive behaviour cognitively mediated? Psychopharmacology 184:553–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, B. R., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B. & de Wit, H. (2006) Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioral measures. Personality and Individual Differences 40(2):305–15.Google Scholar
Verdejo-Garcia, A., Bechara, A., Recknor, E. C. & Perez-Garcia, M. (2007) Negative emotion-driven impulsivity predicts substance dependence problems. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 91:213–19.Google Scholar
Whiteside, S. & Lynam, D. (2001) The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences 30:669–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiers, R. W., Bartholow, B. D., van, denWildenberg, E., Thush, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Sher, K. J., Grenard, J., Ames, S. L. & Stacy, A. W. (2007) Automatic and controlled processes and the development of addictive behaviors in adolescents: A review and a model. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior 86:263–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittman, M. & Paulus, M. P. (2007) Decision making, impulsivity and time perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12:7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar