The target article emphasizes the relationship between a matching law-based theory of addiction and the disease model of addiction. In contrast, this response emphasizes the relationship between the matching law theory and other behavioral approaches to addiction. The basic difference, I argue, is that the matching law specifies that choice is governed by local reinforcement rates. In contrast, economics says that overall reinforcement rate controls choice, and for other approaches there are other measures or no clear prediction at all. The (...) response also differs from the target article in that there is more emphasis on the finding that stimulus conditions determine whether choice is under local or overall reinforcement rate control. (shrink)

Numerous individual differences determine the effectiveness of the multiple external reinforcement contingencies that control drug seeking behavior. Differences in the capacity to frame reinforcement and also the toxic effects of drugs modulate susceptibility to addiction. As a result, not all individuals are at the same degree of risk for addiction.

Heyman s analysis of the relevant complex behavioral variables associated with addiction is evaluated in relation to identifying the appropriate variables in behavior analysis. The model of behavioral allocation and choice known as melioration, discussed by Heyman as a way to understand the complexities of addiction, is examined and contrasted with another model of matching called ratio invariance, which is offered in this commentary as another behavioral account with a significant potential for resolving the contradictions of addiction.

We owe most scientific knowledge to methods of inquiry that are never formally analyzed. The analysis of behavior does not call for hypothetico-deductive methods. Statistics, taught in lieu of scientific method, is incompatible with major features of much laboratory research. Squeezing significance out of ambiguous data discourages the more promising step of scrapping the experiment and starting again. As a consequence, psychologists have taken flight from the laboratory. They have fled to Real People and the human interest of “real life,” (...) to Mathematical Models and the elegance of symbolic treatments, to the Inner Man and the explanatory preoccupation with inferred internal mechanisms, and to Laymanship and its appeal to “common sense.” An experimental analysis provides an alternative to these divertissements.The “theories” to which objection is raised here are not the basic assumptions essential to any scientific activity or statements that are not yet facts, but rather explanations which appeal to events taking place somewhere else, at some other level of observation, described in different terms, and measured, if at all, in different dimensions. Three types of learning theories satisfy this definition: physiological theories attempting to reduce behavior to events in the nervous system; mentalistic theories appealing to inferred inner events; and theories of the Conceptual Nervous System offered as explanatory models of behavior. It would be foolhardy to deny the achievements of such theories in the history of science. The question of whether they are necessary, however, has other implications.Experimental material in three areas illustrates the function of theory more concretely. Alternatives to behavior ratios, excitatory potentials, and so on demonstrate the utility of rate or probability of response as the basic datum in learning. Functional relations between behavior and environmental variables provide an account of why learning occurs. Activities such as preferring, choosing, discriminating, and matching can be dealt with solely in terms of behavior, without referring to processes in another dimensional system. The experiments are not offered as demonstrating that theories are not necessary but to suggest an alternative. Theory is possible in another sense. Beyond the collection of uniform relationships lies the need for a formal representation of the data reduced to a minimal number of terms. A theoretical construction may yield greater generality than any assemblage of facts; such a construction will not refer to another dimensional system. (shrink)

Heyman's target article contributes to our understanding of addictions by offering solutions to several paradoxes and by recognizing the stable nature of addictive behavior. Previous classical and operant conditioning models have emphasized molecular processes, such as acquisition and extinction, and have failed to address the aggregate effects of long-term exposure to the contingencies of drug and alcohol use.

Heyman's target article makes a strong case for a behavioral approach to addiction, yet some important assumptions require justification, and promising behavioral alternatives to the author's melioration approach should be considered. In particular, the behavioral economic approach to addiction appears well developed and comprehensive. How does the melioration approach complement or improve on a behavioral economic account?

Melioration is not superior and may be inferior to other extensions of behavioral choice theory to addiction studies. Progress in the addiction field will be accelerated by the demise of the disease model rather than by attempting to resolve the contradictions it has created.

Extreme sensations – thirst, pain – can focus attention on local consequences at the expense of the overall, perhaps for good evolutionary reasons. Maybe the same phenomenon evolves from prolonged use of addictive substances. The matching law explains mistaken choice, not how a person who has confronted personal catastrophe manages to ignore it in making a locally induced choice.

Choosing the smaller, less delayed reinforcers of drug abuse (including cessation of withdrawal) over the larger, more delayed reinforcers of a healthy life can be described as impulsiveness (the opposite of self-control). Examination of drug abuse using a self-control/impulsiveness framework can help explain many of the puzzles about this behavior, while tying drug abuse into a large research database.

Heyman explains useful ways to bring addictive drug use under environmental control. We doubt that relapse is explained by drug features such as immediate reinforcement, clouding of judgment, and so forth. Relapse may require explanation in terms of enduring sensitization of incentive neural substrates, but even if its causal assumptions are wrong, Heyman's model makes useful predictions for behavioral control.

Heyman's model, paradoxically, predicts that whereas a maximizing approach to drug choice will prevent escalation of drug use it will never yield complete abstinence. We suggest an alternative model that overcomes this difficulty by focusing on changes in drug tolerance. A small modification allows maximization to predict either abstinence or moderation (e.g., social drinking).

Over the years, many theories have been proposed to account for the aberrant behavior of drug dependent individuals. Heyman posits that the existing theories of drug dependence are inadequate to explain the complex processes inherent in human drug-taking. He proposes that incongruous behaviors that comprise addiction, such as continued drug use in spite of adverse consequences, can be explained by application of the matching law approach. While the matching law theory of addiction explains certain aspects of human behavior, its application (...) to the area of addiction must be subjected to experimental verification. (shrink)

Heyman proposes that external stimuli can promote a switch from a local to a global frame of reference for evaluating the consequences of behavior and that such a change might be critical to breaking the grip of drag addiction. Could incentive stimuli promote a switch in the opposite direction and thus contribute to relapse in the recovered addict?

Two issues are raised. (1) What is the nature of the drug effect Heyman thinks confers value to drugs? (2) What is the evidence that drug use decreases the value of drugs and of conventional incentives over the long-term? There is considerable evidence for the opposite; a persistent increase in the sensitivity of neural systems that mediate drug value.

Heyman's model explains the irrationality of addictive behavior, but it does not satisfactorily answer the question of whether this behavior is voluntary because it does not address the issue of the choice of preference functions. Furthermore, although Heyman disconfirms the disease model of addiction, this does not resolve the issue of whether addiction should be classified as a mental illness.

Heyman's target article seeks to resolve the apparent paradox surrounding the issue of control in relation to addictive behaviour. The present commentary argues that addiction is in fact less paradoxical and more easily understandable than Heyman supposes. A fully satisfactory model of addiction, however, requires a more multifaceted approach than that provided by the type of behavioural choice theory favoured by Heyman.

Heyman's analysis of addiction in terms of matching to local relative value can be supplemented by stimulus-control processes. Stimulus equivalence can broaden the set of situations that occasion addictive behavior, and the situation-reinforcer correlation can enhance its persistence. The joint effects of stimulus-control and reinforcement processes may complicate treatment.

Knowledge of specific instances of melioration does not imply knowledge of the variables controlling behavior. Drug self-administration has been successfully analyzed in terms of standard variables such as the immediacy and magnitude of the drug reinforcer. An appeal to melioration may not be necessary.

Addictive behavior has never seemed rational because it persists in spite of drastic aversive consequences. This is a particular problem for models of addiction such as operant psychology which hold that behavior is controlled by its consequences. Inspite of claims to the contrary, Heymans target article illustrates how operant psychology resolves this contradiction. By using the matching law, Heyman suggests a mechanism that explains why delayed aversive events may not control behavior, and a conceptual framework in which we can understand (...) successful therapies. (shrink)

The conflict between drug and conventional rewards leads to a paradox: Sanctions against drug use decrease access to conventional rewards and push drug users toward drug abuse, whereas increased access to the rewards of family, friends, and work may help reduce drug abuse. Lack of control is not specific to drug addiction and is unlikely to yield to a shift in bookkeeping.