| Title |
Addiction and the Brain: Development, Not Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marc Lewis |
| Abstract |
I review the brain disease model of addiction promoted by medical, scientific, and clinical authorities in the US and elsewhere. I then show that the disease model is flawed because brain changes in addiction are similar to those generally observed when recurrent, highly motivated goal seeking results in the development of deep habits, Pavlovian learning, and prefrontal disengagement. This analysis relies on concepts of self-organization, neuroplasticity, personality development, and delay discounting. It also highlights neural and behavioral parallels between substance addictions, behavioral addictions, normative compulsive behaviors, and falling in love. I note that the short duration of addictive rewards leads to negative emotions that accelerate the learning cycle, but cortical reconfiguration in recovery should also inform our understanding of addiction. I end by showing that the ethos of the disease model makes it difficult to reconcile with a developmental-learning orientation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 23% |
| United States | 6 | 15% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Argentina | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 74% |
| Scientists | 7 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 417 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 416 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 75 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 65 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 56 | 13% |
| Researcher | 34 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 5% |
| Other | 69 | 17% |
| Unknown | 97 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 112 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 41 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 38 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 70 | 17% |
| Unknown | 114 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 141. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2024.
All research outputs
#301,666
of 25,886,866 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#1
of 444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,315
of 426,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,886,866 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.