How individuals make choices explains addiction's distinctive, non-eliminable features

Abstract

In keeping with the goals of this Special Issue, this paper poses the following questions: What are addiction's non-eliminable features and can they be explained by one or more general principles? I have added the qualifier "distinctive" to these goals, as in "distinctive non-eliminable features." The result is a highly heterogeneous list, which includes features of addiction's natural history, such as its high remission rates, its unique idioms (e.g., "kicking the habit"), and its patented interventions, such as Alcoholics Anonymous. I show that each of these distinctive features reflects how individuals make choices. In particular, they reflect the competing claims of two basic choice processes: global maximizing of the sort assumed in introductory economics textbooks and Herrnstein's matching law, which has empirical rather than theoretical roots. These are basic choice processes, which apply to all decision making, not just drugs and not just addicts. Nevertheless, they can result in addiction when one of the options has the capacity to undermine the value of competing interests and undermine global maximizing. Conversely, the analyses also show that the two basic choice processes combine so as to predict that addiction is a semi-stable state that is biased to resolve in favor of remission. These predictions are supported by the high rates of addiction, by the high rates of remission from addiction, and by the fact that remission is often unassisted or "spontaneous." The analyses fail to support the idea that pathological psychological processes lead to addiction. Rather they show that addiction emerges from the interactions of normal choice processes and the behaviorally toxic effects of drugs.

Keywords: Addiction; Choice; Drug abuse; Going cold turkey; Hitting Bottom; Kicking the habit; Matching law; Optimal choice; Remission; Substance use disorder.