Psychoactive substances all have very different chemical properties. Not all drugs are obviously addictive. For example, long term, regular use of cannabis leads to tolerance and increasing difficulty stopping despite wishing or attempting to do so. Although the risk of dependence is substantially less than for nicotine or opiates, it is similar to that of alcohol (DiClemente 2003).
Heroin addicts often take daily doses that would kill a normal person and experience
very unpleasant symptoms if they go ‘cold turkey’ and try to stop. In these terms,
tobacco and cocaine were not obviously addictive, yet it was clear that these were
extremely difficult habits to break. (Drugs: dilemmas and choices 2000). This is
where the distinction between physical and psychological dependence emerged. It
is possible for a person to be psychologically dependent on a drug, without
manifesting any physical dependence on it. However, it is generally accepted that
although someone may be physically dependant on a drug, the state of dependence
cannot be said to exist without some kind of psychological dependence present
(Ghodse 1995).
Under the Rational Informed Stable Choice (RISC) model, we do things because we expect them to produce benefits, and we know about and are willing to accept the adverse consequences, whether this is smoking, drinking, or drug taking. For example, a drug user continues to take drugs because it is preferable to the alternative to living without drugs, not necessarily because they cannot stop (West 2006). In other words, the pleasure or escape the addict obtains from a drug is worth whatever the consequences might be. This model is rather simplistic, as its main point is that each individual chooses to keep taking the drug, and does not take into account any biological factors that may or may not be relevant.
Biological theories explaining behaviour tend to focus on physical dependence, in other words, drugs will affect people differently depending on their biological make up. Hesselbrock et al (1999) argued that some people are more susceptible to the effects that a particular drug has (cited in DiClememte: 9). Biological theories focus on different genetic make-ups, and consequently different personality types in relation to everyday life. For example some people cope well with stressful social situations, others do not.
One major problem with biological theories is that there is very little research in relation to drug addiction. Marshall (1990) found that some people may be disposed to drink more because of the comparative lack of effect alcohol has on them, compared to other people (cited in McMurran: 79), and we could generalise this to illicit drug taking. However this is by no means conclusive evidence supporting a biological theory, and the links are not as clear as those linking genetics to alcohol addiction (Diclemente 2003).
Social learning theory suggests that we learn from observing other peoples experiences, which is known as modelling (Bandura 1977). For those who have learned that substance use helps them cope in short term situations, continued substance use will be likely (McMurran 1994).
Addictions are often considered to be the result of poor or inadequate coping mechanisms. Individuals may turn to their addiction for escape or comfort, and to manage situations (Diclemente 2003). According to Social learning theory, the individual becomes ‘more motivated to take the drug more often’ in order to achieve the desired effects (West 2006).
This theory focuses attention on social and individual decisions that are apparent when people become addicted to drug taking. It draws from basic ‘rational choice theories’ but adds a new dimension. Social learning theory suggests that people may choose to take a drug in the first place, whether this is modelling behaviour of their peers or as a ‘coping mechanism’ for difficult social situations, but the theory cannot explain why addiction may or may not develop as a result of drug use. This theory must be treated with caution when it is being applied to human addictions, because the majority of the research has been conducted on animals, and as we know, it can be difficult and not entirely accurate to generalise animal behaviour directly to human behaviour. We cannot be sure that an addiction apparent in a rat follows the same pattern in a human, however these results do show similarities, and a plausible future for further research investigating human addiction (West 2006). It appears that social learning theory provides a more conclusive explanation as to why people start taking drugs, but it is far from conclusive when applied to drug addiction.
Behavioural theories exist alongside social theories, as is normally the case within psychology, there is an overlap between different theories. Some psychologists believe that addiction is simply a type of behaviour that is maintained in terms of punishments and rewards. B. F. Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning (cited in McMurran: 36) states that ‘all kinds of behaviour are maintained as a result of its consequences’. If a person receives a positive reinforcement from engaging in drug taking, it means that they are likely to take the drug again, because of the enjoyment it produced. Negative reinforcement can also occur, for example, taking a drug to avoid unwanted experiences such as relief of physical, psychological or social discomfort, and this is also likely to increase the frequency of drug taking.
Operant conditioning can explain how drug taking behaviour can start, as does Social learning theory, and it also leads to an explanation as to how this behaviour can lead to the ‘Habit formation stage’, where behaviours become habitualized (Meyer 1999).
Meyer then argued that this ‘habit’ could then turn into a dependence phase, whereby the person comes to rely on use of the drug and the states it induces, in order to maintain stability (1999:47).
Operant conditioning might explain how a person starts their drug taking behaviour and any possible reasons why, but it cannot expand widely enough to cover the ‘psychology of addiction’. It seems that this theory might account for some psychological states of dependence, but it does not account for physical dependence, highlighted with the problems of withdrawal. This theory of behaviour draws attention the fact mentioned earlier in this essay, that it is very difficult to find one conclusive theory. Operant conditioning focuses on the mental state of ‘addicts’ and how they feel, and tends to ignore any physical factors that might also help explain their addiction.
In 1992, Glantz and Pickens formed a Biopsychosocial model (cited in DiClemente: 17) to try and explain the psychology of addiction, which, as the name suggests, combines biological, psychological and social theories together to try and create a more diverse model of addiction which could cover the various aspects of substance dependence. It is clear that within this model lie the boundaries for future research into drug addiction, combining aspects from different areas of psychology and everyday life.
The causes of drug dependence are not known. It is not known why some people but not others in the same situation start experimenting with drugs, or why some but not others, then continue to take them, and finally, why some but not all become dependent on drugs (Ghodse et al 1990). It is now generally accepted that drug-related behaviour is the consequence of interaction between the drug, the individual and society. None of the component factors alone is sufficient to cause drug dependence.
There is a lack of longitudinal data investigating why children start to experiment with psychoactive substances, and why it is that some develop addictive behaviours and others do not.
Obviously a lot more research on the topic of drug addiction is needed. Because of legal restrictions, alcohol has been the drug of choice when trying to explain addictive behaviour in humans, and illicit drug addiction has mainly been experimented on animals.
Is it the physical dependence that is so hard to beat, or the psychological dependence, that is, the addiction to being an addict’ (McMurran 1994). In other words, the person might be more addicted to the way of life than the drug itself, which is why there is not one single explanation of addiction, because of the varying types of dependence.
Drugs may be chosen because they relieve feelings of anxiety, help control aggression, stress relief, help with insomnia, and so on (Buckley 1998 cited in West: 37; Turner et al 2006). If this is the case, it is easy to see why people become so easily ‘addicted’, because the thought of dealing with their problem without the drugs might be too difficult to imagine, so they continue in the cycle of taking drugs. One must then consider whether it is fair to label these people as addicts, as they are choosing to continue to take drugs, whereas the term addict is linked so closely with ‘dependence’, which implies behaviour beyond conscious control.
Word count: 1,992
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. London: Prentice-Hall
Davies, J. 1997. Drugspeak: the analysis of drug discourse. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic
DiClemente, C. 2003. Addiction and change: how addictions develop and addicted people recover. London: Guilford Press
Ghodse, H. 1995. Drugs and Addictive behaviour; a guide to treatment.
(2nd Ed). Oxford. Blackwell Scientific.
Ghodse, H. Kaplan, C & Mann, R. (Eds) 1990. Drug misuse and dependence.
Carnforth : Parthenon Publishing.
McMurran, M. 1994. The psychology of addiction. London: Taylor & Francis
Meyer D. G. and Hartel, C. R. (Eds) 1999. Drug abuse: origins & interventions. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association
Turner, R. J., Lloyd, D. A., & Taylor, J. 2006 Stress burden, drug dependence and the nativity paradox among U.S. Hispanics. Volume 83, Issue 1, Pages 79-89 (9 June 2006)
Available at:
West, R. 2006. Theory of Addiction. Oxford: Blackwell
Working Party of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians. 2000. Drugs: dilemmas and choices. London: Gaskell
