MODELS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR
To read up on models of addictive behaviour, refer to pages 609–618 of Eysenck’s A2 Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 Is there a biological basis to addictive behaviour?
 Can somebody learn to be an addict?
 How might explanations of addiction differ for different addictions?
What you need to know
MODELS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR

EXPLANATIONS OF ADDICTIVE
BEHAVIOUR
Biological, behavioural (learning),
and cognitive models of addictive
behaviour


Biological, behavioural (learning),
and cognitive explanations for
initiation, maintenance, and
relapse
Specific explanations of particular
addictions including smoking and
gambling
MODELS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR
The models of addictive behaviour attempt to explain the causes and thereby offer insights into how an
addiction develops. The assumptions as to the causes of addiction also affect the approach taken to
treatment.
Biological model of addictive behaviour
According to this model, the main causes of addictive behaviour are biological factors within the
individual, for example, a neurochemical imbalance or a genetic predisposition towards addictive
behaviour. Thus, the vulnerability to develop an addiction may be inherited and family studies are used to
support this explanation. Thus approach assumes that addiction has physical causes and can therefore only
be cured through medicine.
Behavioural (learning) model of addictive behaviour
This model is based on the principles of learning and the assumption that all behaviour is learned through
association (classical conditioning), reinforcement (operant conditioning), or social learning (social
learning theory) from environmental experience. Thus, addiction is the learning of maladaptive and
dysfunctional behaviour.
Cognitive model of addictive behaviour
This model suggests cognitive dysfunction underpins addiction. The individual is an information processor
and it is a breakdown in cognitive processing that causes the addiction. Irrational, obsessive, and faulty
thinking can affect emotion and behaviour. Thus, according to this model, faulty thinking and errors in
decision making are considered to be the causes of addiction.
EXPLANATIONS OF ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOURS
Biological explanations of addictive behaviour
The biological explanation can explain chemical addictions such as nicotine more easily than addictions
such as gambling. Biological explanations of addiction focus on neurotransmitters in the brain, and on
genetic differences between people with addictions and people without addictions.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS
 The neurotransmitter dopamine and other brain biochemicals have been
linked to addictions, both chemical addition (drug addiction) and behaviours
such as gambling and videogame playing (Potenza, 2001, see A2 Level
Psychology page 611). High levels of dopamine are experienced as rewarding,
which is why the addiction is initially enjoyed and maintained. See the bullet
point below on reinforcement.
 Some family studies suggest a link between addictive behaviour and
personality traits. For example, a study of monozygotic and dizygotic twins
found a connection between genetics and the characteristics of anti-social
personality (including attention seeking, not following social norms, and
violence) and between these personality characteristics and alcoholism
(Jang, Vernon, & Livesley, 2000, see A2 Level Psychology page 612). Similar
findings have also been found for behavioural addictions such as gambling
addiction (Comings et al., 1996, see A2 Level Psychology page 612).
 Genetics analysis looks for common genes in people with addictive behaviour
compared to control groups without such behaviour.
 The biological explanation overlaps with the behavioural explanation (see
below) when we look at reinforcement, which explains that the addiction is
in some way rewarding. One way in which reinforcement could be obtained
may be biological because there are “pleasure centres” in the brain (Olds &
Milner, 1954, see A2 Level Psychology page 612). The “pleasure centres”
could be activated as a result of the addiction; in this way the reward
pathways in the brain are excited. This interlinks with dopamine since
usually high levels of dopamine form part of these pathways.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE AGAINST BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS
 A study of over 300 monozygotic (identical) twins and just under 200 samesex dizygotic (fraternal) twins was used to estimated the contribution of
genetic factors and environmental factors to substance use in adolescence.
The conclusion was that the major influences on the decision to use
substances were environmental rather than genetic (Han et al., 1999, see A2
Level Psychology page 611)
Evaluation of biological explanations
 Separating out the effects of addiction. Ashton and Golding (1989, see A2
Level Psychology page 612) show that it is difficult to separate out the effects
of addiction. For example, nicotine can affect a number of systems including
learning and memory, the control of pain, and the relief of anxiety. This
means that it is difficult to pin down a single response that follows smoking a
cigarette and this makes it more difficult to explain the initiation and
maintenance of the disorder.
 Reductionist—ignores social factors. The biological approach ignores
social factors, which means it is too reductionist as it reduces everything to
biology when there are important social factors such as the escapism
associated with taking drugs.
 Lack of reliability in genetics analysis findings. The problem with studies
on genetics is that the genes identified do not occur in all people with the
addictive behaviour and they do appear in some people without it. For
example, a gene referred to as DRD2 has been found in 42% of people with
alcoholism, 50% of pathological gamblers, 45% of people with Tourette’s
syndrome, and 55% of people with autism; it has also been found in 25% of
the general population. This means that DRD2 appears more frequently in
people with addictions but it also appears in those without and so it cannot
be the sole explanation for the behaviour (Comings, 1998, see A2 Level
Psychology page 613). Thus, there is a lack of consistency in the nature of the
genetic basis across different research studies, which clouds the exact nature
of the genetic basis.
 Determinism. The genetic explanation can be seen as deterministic because
it ignores the individual’s ability to control their own behaviour. This
suggests that inheriting a certain genetic sequence makes the addiction
inevitable when this is not the case.
 Nature or nurture. The brain abnormality, to some extent, is due to genetic
factors, but as biological factors lack reliability then nature must interact
with nurture.
 Diathesis–stress. Genes alone do not determine who will develop an
addiction—they only create vulnerability. Thus, they are not a direct cause as
other factors must trigger the disorder. Evidence for this is that the
concordance rates are not 100%, which shows that addiction is due to an
interaction of genetic and other factors.
Behavioural (learning) explanations of addictive behaviour
Behavioural (i.e. learning) explanations include classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning
may explain the association of the addictive behaviour with pleasure and/or excitement and so account for
the initiation of the addictive behaviour. Operant conditioning explains behaviour in terms of rewards and
punishments, and, as you will see below, partial reinforcement can be a powerful factor in the maintenance
of addictions.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE ON BEHAVIOURAL (LEARNING) EXPLANATIONS
 The extent of behaviour change depends on the schedule of reinforcement:
partial reinforcement is more effective than continuous reinforcement. If
reinforcement is continuous then the behaviour ceases as soon as the
reinforcement does. However, if the reinforcement is on a partial and
variable schedule this means the reinforcement is unpredictable and the
behaviour continues, presumably because one cannot be sure when the next
reinforcement will happen. This explains the maintenance of addictive
behaviours, especially gambling, because of course never knowing when the
next win is going to happen is a form of partial and variable reinforcement.
 Classical conditioning models suggest that people continue to gamble as a
result of becoming conditioned to the excitement or arousal associated with
gambling, so that they feel bored, unstimulated, and restless when they are
not gambling.
Evaluation of behavioural (learning) explanations
 Applications. Classical and operant perspectives have been central to the
development of measures of “impaired control” over gambling (Dickerson &
O’Connor, 2006, see A2 Level Psychology page 613) and clinical interventions
using desensitisation, aversive conditioning, and satiation techniques, so the
research has real-world applications.
 Classical conditioning explains initiation, not maintenance. Classical
conditioning seems useful to explain people’s motivation to commence a
gambling session, but appears less useful to explain persistent gambling
behaviour, so it explains initiation more than maintenance.
 Operant conditioning doesn’t explain acquisition or relapse very well
but does explain maintenance. Operant conditioning is less useful in
explaining why people commence gambling or recommence gambling after a
prolonged period of abstinence (Griffiths, 1995, see A2 Level Psychology page
613). It does not explain why people start gambling, because how do they
know the addictive behaviour will be rewarding before they have tried it? It
explains maintenance better since once the rewards are established this
explains why the addiction continues. It doesn’t really explain relapses
because usually the abstinence is because the addictive behaviour is at this
point associated more with punishment than rewards, so operant
conditioning would predict extinction not a resurgence of the addictive
behaviour.
 Gamblers lose more than they win. Researchers have questioned the
extent to which behaviour like excessive gambling adheres to operant theory
at all, since gamblers lose more than they win (Delfabbro & Winefield, 1999,
see A2 Level Psychology page 613).
 Individual differences. Rewards are subjective, i.e. open to interpretation,
and so conditioning theories lack generalisability as they do not fully account
for why people exposed to similar stimuli respond differently; why some
smoke, drink, or gamble whereas others do not, or why some people smoke,
drink, or gamble more than others. Thus, the explanation does not account
for such individual differences and so cannot explain addictive behaviour
fully.
 Varying explanatory power for different forms of addiction. Operant
conditioning does not explain different forms of gambling equally well. It
accounts well for slot machine and scratch card gambling, because there is a
short time interval between stake and outcome, and the outcome is entirely
due to chance. However, it is more difficult to apply these principles to skilled
gambling games such as blackjack, poker, and sports betting, because in
these forms of gambling player decisions can significantly influence
outcomes.
 Ignores cognition. The behavioural approach does not consider cognition
because cognition is neither observable nor measurable and this is a
significant omission because, as the above point considers, some forms of
gambling do involve a great deal of decision making and therefore cognition.
Even in less sophisticated forms expectations play some role, so the ignoring
of cognition is a weakness.
Cognitive explanations of addictive behaviour
Cognitive explanations focus on the way that we process information. If we are making faulty judgements
then we might develop addictive behaviours. This explanation is not nearly as clear cut as it sounds because
faulty thinking is what keeps us going. For example, some research suggests the only reason people don’t
become depressed is that they have a rose-tinted view of the world and that a positive bias about ourselves
allows us to judge ourselves as more competent than we really are—how depressing!
RESEARCH EVIDENCE FOR COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
 Research suggests that gamblers overestimate the extent to which they can
predict or influence gambling outcomes and tend to misjudge how much
money they have won or lost (Langer, 1975; Langer & Roth, 1983, see A2
Level Psychology page 614)
 Studies conducted using the so-called “thinking aloud” method (Griffiths,
1994, see A2 Level Psychology page 614), reveal high levels of irrationality in
verbalised statements made during gambling sessions. For example,
explaining away losses often involves hindsight bias with players predicting
events after they happen, such as concluding they knew the machine wasn’t
going to pay out because it had paid out earlier! Others personify the
machine and frequently swear at it.
 Faulty thinking includes gamblers’ overconfidence in their ability to win
money (Wagenaar, 1988; Walker 1992, see A2 Level Psychology page 615).
Evidence suggests that problem gamblers frequently overestimate the
amount of control and skill involved in gambling (Griffiths, 1994; Parke et al.,
2007 see A2 Level Psychology page 615).
RESEARCH EVIDENCE AGAINST COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
 Dickerson and Baron (2000, see A2 Level Psychology page 615) have
concluded that irrational thinking is probably more a reflection of demand
characteristics than a rational underlying behaviour. Thus, the statements
made that seem to illustrate cognitive biases may be due to the difficulty of
trying to come up with rational, meaningful statements in chancedetermined situations.
Evaluation of cognitive explanations
 Cause and effect. It could be argued that cognitive biases reflect behaviour
rather than cause it (particularly if they are used as a justification of the
behaviour).
 Usefulness of the findings. However, research on cognitive biases in
gambling behaviour may help to provide insights into other types of
addictive bias. For instance, smokers and drinkers may rationalise their
behaviour following their actions in much the same way in which gamblers
do.
 Context needs to be considered. Contextual factors seem to play a role in
cognitive research. For example, Griffiths (1994, see A2 Level Psychology page
616) found that regular gamblers had greater difficulty than occasional
players in verbalising their thoughts while they were gambling. Regular
players seemed capable of gambling without attending to what they were
doing, suggesting: (1) that cognitive processes did not play a major role in
the maintenance of their behaviour; or (2) that the original justifications or
rationales for behaviour were less accessible. In either case, Griffiths’
observations suggested that temporal factors (namely, how long a person has
been gambling) appear to be important. Thus, cognitive factors may hold
more validity for infrequent gamblers than for regular players.
How faulty is the cognition? Some forms of gambling do involve skilful play
(e.g. racing, blackjack, table poker). The more people play or know about
these activities, the greater their awareness of the skills involved. Thus,
beliefs about control and skill may not be completely irrational.
 Multi-perspective. It should also be noted that psychological explanations
are insufficient to explain the full complexity of addiction and that a unified
theory of addiction will be complex and biopsychosocial (Griffiths, 2006,
2008, see A2 Level Psychology page 616).
So what does this mean?

A multi-perspective best accounts for the development of addiction. Initiation can be explained by a
complex interplay of biology, learning, and irrational beliefs. Central to research is to ascertain whether
addicts possess qualities that would predispose them to excessive gambling.
The idea of a biological disposition is attractive because it offers a general theory of addiction. However, is
not sufficient to say this is the key causative factor as it does not explain why one individual exposed to the
same stimuli develops an addiction and the other does not, nor does it account for the type of addiction that
develops.
Addiction is a multi-faceted behaviour that is strongly influenced by contextual factors that cannot be
explained by any single theoretical perspective. Research and clinical interventions are best served by a
biopsychosocial approach that incorporates the best strands of contemporary psychology, biology, and
sociology.
Over to you
1. Outline and evaluate one or more models of addiction. (25 marks)