The tapestry of addiction theory may never be complete, but each new thread we add brings us closer to a fuller, richer understanding of this complex human experience. The biopsychosocial model of addiction is a holistic approach that views addiction as arising from a complex interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors. This means that there isn’t just one cause of addiction but rather a combination of influences that can make someone more or less likely to develop an addiction. The biopsychosocial model emphasizes the interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors.
Ch. 1: Introduction to Psychological Models of Addiction
A person does not necessarily have to experience the rewards and punishments themselves; learning also happens by watching others engage in the behavior and seeing what happens to them. The clearest clinical implications of the BPSM, in contrast as always with the narrower BMM, is accommodation of psychological and social factors as well as biological factors relevant to clinical management and treatment. The importance of this broader scope has been substantially supported in the clinical trials literature, appearing mainly after Engel wrote his 1977 main paper. Research designs relevant to the BPSM are those that examine the effects of psychological and social, as well as biological factors, on health outcomes (e.g. Lacombe, Armstrong, Wright, & Foster, 2019).
Stigma, Heroin Assisted Treatment, and the Biopsychosocial Systems Model
- Furthermore, some communities are targeted more heavily with alcohol and tobacco advertisements and have more availability of drugs of abuse than others, particularly impoverished communities (Primack et al., 2007; Rose et al., 2019).
- The Biopsychosocial Plus Model recognizes the complex interactions between the biological, psychological, social, cultural, and spiritual aspects of addiction.
- These models provide crucial insights into the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aspects of addiction, complementing the biological understanding we’ve explored.
- What happens in early life has profound consequences in adulthood, and what happens in one generation may hold significance for future generations.
- Before the biopsychosocial model, addiction was often viewed through a single lens – be it purely biological, psychological, or social.
The cognitive-behavioral model of addiction is perhaps one of the most widely recognized and applied psychological frameworks. This approach posits that addiction is a learned behavior, maintained by cognitive processes and environmental cues. According to this model, individuals develop maladaptive thoughts and beliefs about substance use, which in turn drive their behavior. For example, a person might believe that they need alcohol to socialize effectively, leading to continued drinking despite negative consequences. Shifting gears, we come to the social learning model of addiction, which views substance abuse through the lens of Albert Bandura’s social learning theory.
Substance use disorders / Addictions as a Biopsychosocial Plus phenomenon
The clearest expression of dualist assumptions in psychology was in behaviorism, which explicitly excluded mental processes from explanations of behavior – a position much like Engel attributed to the BMM. From around the 1960s onwards, however, behaviorism was swept away in the cognitive revolution (Miller, 2003; Xiong & Proctor, 2018). When adopted appropriately, health professionals conceptualize patients that they work with in a broad context that attempts to understand and see patients as a whole person—complex human being with nuance, so much more than just a cluster of symptoms or diagnosis.
Furthermore, some communities are targeted more heavily with alcohol and tobacco advertisements and have more availability of drugs of abuse than others, particularly impoverished communities https://yourhealthmagazine.net/article/addiction/sober-houses-rules-that-you-should-follow/ (Primack et al., 2007; Rose et al., 2019). Therefore, the social environment in which one exists contributes to their risk of addiction. The prominent belief several decades ago was that addiction resulted from bad choices stemming from a morally weak person.
The empirical foundation of this model is thus interdisciplinary, and both descriptive sober house and applied. Realizing a neurobiological or genetic susceptibility to addiction could empower life planning and the avoidance of high-risk scenarios. Individuals involved in treatment could learn effective coping strategies, modify proximal environmental triggers, and achieve other social goals. These perceptions may greatly affect addiction recovery rates (Godin and Kok 1996). As Hall and colleagues (2003a) remark, “A ‘disease’ that can be ‘seen’ in the many-hued splendor of a PET scan carries more conviction than one justified by the possibly exculpatory self-reports of individuals who claim to be unable to control their drug use” (p.1485). Moving beyond the biological realm, psychological models of addiction offer a different perspective, focusing on the mental processes and emotional factors that contribute to substance use disorders.
- Think back to the beginning days of the COVID-19 pandemic and how many people were negatively impacted by the social gathering restrictions.
- But this definition barely scratches the surface of the intricate mechanisms at play.
- Traditionally, healthcare has focused primarily on the medical and biological side of the patient’s needs, and mental health care has focused on the psychological side.
- This is one path to follow for new opportunities for treatment and intervention directed toward prevention.
- Transgenerational inheritance of addiction-like behavior appears supported by epigenetic mechanisms (i.e., environmental exposure) over genetic factors (107).
Biological Theories: The Body’s Role in Addiction
In this paper we use the term “substance use disorder” or “addiction” to refer to both the complex nature of severe substance dependence and substance abuse. Rates of substance use and dependence vary across, and even within, cultural and social groups (Wallace 1999; Wallace, Bachman, O’Malley et al. 2002). Factors such as availability and peer modeling account for the inter- and intra-group disparities (Thomas 2007). These factors may indicate a certain level of group risk for problematic substance use, but cannot verify either the likelihood of substance use occurring within the group or which individuals within the group are more likely to be affected. These factors are not inherent in the composition of the social structure, are neither stable nor persistent, but are governed by the social values and norms of that social system or group (Bunge 2003).
Addressing the opioid crisis from all perspectives discussed herein should be considered a public health priority. Advances in neuroscience are changing how mental health issues such as addiction are understood and addressed as a brain disease. Although a brain disease model legitimizes addiction as a medical condition, it promotes neuro-essentialist thinking, categorical ideas of responsibility and free choice, and undermines the complexity involved in its emergence. We propose a ‘biopsychosocial systems’ model where psycho-social factors complement and interact with neurogenetics. A systems approach addresses the complexity of addiction and approaches free choice and moral responsibility within the biological, lived experience and socio-historical context of the individual. We examine heroin-assisted treatment as an applied case example within our framework.
We conclude with a discussion of the model and its implications for drug policy, research, addiction health care systems and delivery, and treatment of substance use problems. This perspective suggests that certain individuals may be more susceptible to addiction due to their genetic makeup. Research has identified several genes that may influence an individual’s risk of developing substance use disorders, including those involved in reward processing and impulse control. However, it’s crucial to note that having these genetic variants doesn’t guarantee addiction; rather, it increases the likelihood when combined with environmental factors. A tangled web of biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors lies at the heart of addiction, challenging our understanding and treatment of this pervasive issue.
The importance of considering multiple perspectives in addiction treatment cannot be overstated. By drawing from various models, clinicians can develop more comprehensive and personalized treatment plans. For instance, a treatment approach might combine medication-assisted treatment (based on the biological model) with cognitive-behavioral therapy (drawing from psychological models) and family interventions (informed by social and environmental perspectives). The self-medication hypothesis, proposed by psychiatrist Edward Khantzian, offers yet another integrative perspective.
It’s as if your brain has discovered the world’s best cat video and can’t stop hitting replay, even when the rest of your life is falling apart. Overcome addiction with our family support system, and regain control of your life! The Psychological Models of Addiction emphasize the importance of tailoring treatment to individual needs and circumstances. So, how does all this theoretical knowledge translate into practical treatment approaches? We’ve all heard the saying “you are the company you keep,” and when it comes to addiction, this can be particularly true.
Simply put, alcohol or other drug use is more likely if positive outcomes are expected than if negative outcomes are expected. Results from the 2016 Monitoring the Future study of middle and high school students are informative here. The students were asked to rate the harmfulness of various substance use behaviors in terms of how much they believed a person risks self-harm (physical or other ways) by using specific substances. As you can see, the students expected less potential harm with an experimental trial of these substances (once or twice) compared to occasional or regular use. They also distinguished between the potential harm of using different types of substances, especially they viewed alcohol and marijuana as being less harmful than the other substances. This estimate of harmfulness represents an expectancy related to using these substances in the described patterns.