Our distant forebears wrestled with concepts of alcohol addiction not unlike those of today: Is addiction a sin or a disease? Is addiction caused by the gods, the substance, the individual's vulnerability, or psychological or social factors? Luther, Calvin, and Catholic Church leaders viewed moderate alcohol use as God's gift; used intemperately, it was a moral transgression. The founders of modern scientific psychiatry rejected moral explanations for addiction in favor of an early biological model. The first two versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I and DSM-II) stigmatized addiction by listing it with other societally disapproved disorders stemming from personality disorder. DSM-III espoused atheoretical, descriptive diagnoses but required tolerance or withdrawal to diagnose dependence. Substance dependence in DSM-III-R included physiological and behavioral symptoms and reflected the substance dependence syndrome. DSM-IV's emphasis on biology in its concept of dependence was unchanged from its immediate predecessors. DSM-5 declared that all drugs taken in excess have in common the direct activation of the brain reward system. This article examines evolving concepts of alcohol addiction through 12,000 years of recorded human history, from the first mention of alcohol consumption in China more than 12,000 years ago to alcohol use and abuse in the DSM era, 1952 to the present. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology Volume 12 is March 28, 2016. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 May 2021.
All research outputs
#8,599,985
of 32,125,052 outputs
Outputs from Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
#285
of 403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,648
of 309,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,125,052 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 309,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.
