↓ Skip to main content

Psychotropic substance‐seeking: evolutionary pathology or adaptation?

Overview of attention for article published in Addiction, April 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
245 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Psychotropic substance‐seeking: evolutionary pathology or adaptation?
Published in
Addiction, April 2002
DOI 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00024.x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

According to a conventional evolutionary perspective, the human propensity for substance use is the product of a 'mismatch' between emotional mechanisms that evolved in a past without pure drugs or direct routes of drug administration, and the occurrence of these phenomena in the contemporary environment. The primary purpose of this review is to assert that, contrary to the conventional view, humans have shared a coevolutionary relationship with psychotropic plant substances that is millions of years old. We argue that this 'deep time' relationship is self-evident both in the extant chemical-ecological adaptations that have evolved in mammals to metabolize psychotropic plant substances and in the structure of plant defensive chemicals that have evolved to mimic the structure, and interfere with the function, of mammalian neurotransmitters. Given this evidence, we question how emotional mechanisms easily triggered by plant toxins can have evolved. Our argument is also supported with archeological and historical evidence of substance use in antiquity suggesting that, for people in the past, psychotropic plant substances were as much a mundane everyday item as they are for many people today. Our second, and more speculative objective is to suggest provisional hypotheses of human substance-using phenomena that can incorporate the evolutionary implications of a deep time relationship between psychotropic substances and people. We discuss hypotheses of selective benefits of substance use, including the idea that neurotransmitter-analog plant chemicals were exploited as substitutes for costly, nutritionally constrained endogenous neurotransmitters. However, even if substance seeking was adaptive in the environment of our hominid ancestors, it may not still be so in the contemporary environment. Thus, the implications of our argument are not that the mismatch concept does not apply to human substance-using phenomena, but that it must be reconsidered and extended to incorporate the implications of a substance-rich, rather than substance-free, evolutionary past.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 8 3%
Portugal 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 226 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 17%
Student > Bachelor 39 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 16%
Student > Master 33 13%
Other 11 4%
Other 45 18%
Unknown 38 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 27%
Psychology 40 16%
Social Sciences 23 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 9%
Neuroscience 13 5%
Other 41 17%
Unknown 40 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 28 January 2026.
All research outputs
#1,912,710
of 34,365,356 outputs
Outputs from Addiction
#1,364
of 6,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,434
of 178,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Addiction
#30
of 446 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,365,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 178,418 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 446 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 93% of its contemporaries.