Quitting smoking without help is hard: Effects of motivation and other personality factors

Quitting smoking is hard, but that suggestion probably isn’t terribly exciting all on its own since most of our readers probably knew it already. Still, while we’ve talked about quitting smoking using nicotine replacement and medication, we haven’t really touched the subject of all those people out there who just decide to give quitting smoking a try one day without those patches, gums, or pills.

Since something like 95% of those who try their hand at quitting smoking relapse within one year, and most of these people try to quit unaided, I think this is an important topic to touch on. Fortunately, recent research conducted in the U.K. tried to assess the personality and cognitive aspects that end up predicting who will succeed, or fail, in their quit attempt.

The effects of expectation, motivation, and impulsivity when quitting smoking

Quite a bit of research has already shown that when smokers are trying to quit (so we’re talking early on during abstinence), their brains react differently to stimuli in the environment depending on the relationship between those stimuli and nicotine. Stimuli that aren’t associated with smoking (or some other form of nicotine intake) get less attention and show overall less activation of important brain circuits while nicotine associated cues light up the brain just as if nicotine was on board (even though participants were drug free at the time). Essentially, if a stimulus predicts getting a hit, the brain gets smokers to pay attention to it so that they can do whatever is necessary and get a little drug in. Throw in some of that reduced ability to control behavior that we talk about so much (like impulsivity), and which is common not only in smokers but in users of almost every other drug (heroin might be the exception) and you have a recipe for disaster, or at least for a good bit of smoking relapse. And yet if we want to fight the horrible health consequences of cigarettes, then quitting smoking has to be made easier, which nicotine replacement and medications like bupropion have done to some extent.

As part of this equation, knowing the specific predictors of early relapse in people who are quitting smoking may be useful so that professionals planning smoking interventions can do a better job of targeting the most important factors. The study recently published the journal Psychopharmacology tried to assess the relationship between the severity of smoking, the above-mentioned personality factors, and the success of the quitting attempt.

The cool thing about this study is that the 141 people who participated were assessed on a whole set of these cognitive tests twice – once after a smoking free night and a nicotine lozenge and another time after a smoking free night followed by a nicotine-free lozenge. While they couldn’t tell which was which, the procedure gave the researchers an assessment off how different participants’ reactions were with or without nicotine on board. Following the assessments participants were directed to begin their attempt at quitting smoking. While they were asked not to use nicotine replacement options or other medications, they were allowed to use any other resource available and were given a set of information pamphlets that explained expected side effects and likely difficulties during the quit attempt. They were then followed up after 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months. Quitting was identified as minimal smoking (less than 2 cigarettes per week) and was verified both by self report and cotinine testing. There was a small financial incentive to quitting, with people who relapsed after a week getting only £40 (about $60) and those who made it through month 3 getting £150 (about $250), though I’m pretty sure that if $200 was enough to make people quit we’d have just paid up already…

The first thing to note in the results was that 24% of the participants were still not smoking at the 33 month followup. This seems to be about on par with the usually low success rates at 1 year though I’m sure this research group will try to continue following these participants at least up to the 1 year mark and hopefully produce another paper.

The overall most reliable predictor of who quit and who relapsed ended up being the level of nicotine dependence as measured by the participants’ pre-quit attempt cotinine levels and the number of cigarettes they smoked every day. Since cotinine assessments are less biased, it was the most predictive of all throughout the experiment (# of daily cigarettes was no longer predictive at 3 months). Interestingly, self reported impulsivity and smokers’ initial ratings of cravings for cigarettes didn’t end up predicting relapse at all, but those cognitive tests assessing the quitters’ reactions to nicotine associated cues told a pretty interesting story: It seems that early on during their quitting attempt smokers who had more general interference with their cognitive function relapsed sooner. These cognitive problems can be thought of as interfering with normal thinking by nicotine-related cues and maybe even more general interference with brain function. After the 1-week follow-up, at the 1 and 3 month assessment, the odds of quitting had more to do with baseline assessments of motor impulsivity as well as those initial cotinine levels assessing the degree of nicotine dependence.

The take-home: Quitting smoking is hard for different reasons in the first week and later on

If you’ve ever tried to quit you’ve been told you that the first week is the hardest and that once you make it through that the rest is a piece of cake. While this research doesn’t necessarily support that notion, since about 25% of the sample relapsed between each of the followups, it does seem to indicate that the reasons for relapse change after that first week.

It seems that the first week may be difficult because of general cognitive interference by stimuli and cues that are nicotine associated. Those cues make it hard to pay attention to much else and they interfere with normal thinking and attention process, making sticking to the quit attempt difficult. After that point, successfully quitting smoking seems to be associated more with the level of initial smoking and that damn motor impulsivity test. The finding that heavier smokers have a harder time quitting isn’t new and isn’t surprising, but the fact that cognitive effects and predictors of relapse change does suggest that the interventions likely to help smokers quit may need to be different during week 1 and afterward.

Overall, these findings suggest that the cognitive function problems associated with quitting smoking (or smoking in general) may recover faster than do some of the other physiological factors associated with quitting since the initial levels of smoking continued to be highly predictive throughout the 3 month period of followup. Another explanation could be that initial smoking levels affected brain function in ways not assessed by these researchers.

Since so many smokers relapse within the first week (more than 50%), it seems to me that interventions that really focus on the cognitive interference and the extreme attention towards nicotine associated cues and stimuli would be helpful for those quitting smoking. Maybe if we can reduce relapse numbers at 1 week we can have a more gradual fall-off for the following month resulting in significantly higher quit rates.

Interestingly, NIDA and other research organizations are getting really interested in the use of technologies like virtual reality for help in addiction training. It seems that in this context, these sorts of treatments might be useful in helping early quitters train to avoid that cognitive interference. Additionally, medications like modafinil, and maybe even other ADHD medication could be used very early on for those quitting smoking to help recover some of their ability to control their attention thereby reducing the power nicotine associated stimuli have over them. I guess we’ll have to wait and see as those who develop interventions start integrating this research. In the meantime, I’d love to hear from readers who have quit or tried to quit: Does this research seem to support your own experiences?

Citation:

Jane Powell, Lynne Dawkins, Robert West, John Powell and Alan Pickering (2010). Relapse to smoking during unaided cessation: clinical, cognitive and motivational predictors, Psychopharmacology.

 

© 2012 Adi Jaffe, All Rights Reserved

Look for Rehab with the A3 Rehab-Finder

Adi’s Mailing List | Adi’s eMail | Follow Adi on Twitter

Become a Fan on Facebook | Connect with Adi at LinkedIn

 

The first thing to  note in the results was the 24% of the participants were still not smoking at the 33 month followup. This seems to be about on track for the normally low success rates at 1 year though I’m sure this group will try to follow these individuals up at that point and hopefully produce another paper. The overall most reliable predictor of who quit and who relapsed ended up being the level of nicotine dependence as measured by the participants’ pre-quit attempt cotinine levels and the number of cigarettes they smoked every day. Since cotinine assessments are less biased, it was the most predictive of all throughout the experiment (# of daily cigarettes was no longer predictive at 3 months). Interestingly, self reported impulsivity and smokers’ initial ratings of cravings for cigarettes didn’t end up predicting relapse at all, but those cognitive tests assessing the quitters’ reactions to nicotine associated cues told a pretty interesting story: It seems that early on during their quitting attempt smokers who had more general interference with their cognitive function relapsed sooner. These cognitive problems can be thought of as interruption with normal thinking by nicotine-related cues and maybe even more general interference with brain function. After that point, at the 1 and 3 month follow-ups, had more to do with baseline assessments of motor impulsivity as well as those initial cotinine levels assessing the degree of nicotine dependence.

The take-home: Quitting smoking is hard for different reasons in the first week and later on

If you’ve ever tried to quit you’ve heard someone telling you that the first week is the hardest and once you make it through that the rest is a piece of cake. Well, this research doesn’t really support that notion since about 25% of the sample relapsed between each of the followups, but it does seem to indicate that the reasons for relapse change after that first week. It seems that the first week may be difficult because of general cognitive interference by stimuli and cues that are nicotine associated. Those cues make it hard to pay attention to much else and they interfere with normal thinking and attention process, making sticking to the quit attempt difficult. After that point, successfully quitting smoking was associated more with the level of initial smoking and that damn motor impulsivity test. The finding that heavier smokers have a harder time quitting isn’t new and isn’t surprising, but the fact that cognitive effects and predictors of relapse change does suggest that the interventions likely to help smokers quit may need to be different during week 1 and afterward. Overall, these findings suggest that the brain function problems associated with quitting smoking (or smoking in general) may recover faster than do some of the other physiological factors associated with quitting since the initial levels of smoking continued to be highly predictive throughout the 3 month period of followup. Another explanation could be that initial smoking levels affected brain function in ways not assessed by these researchers.

Since so many smokers relapse within the first week (more than 50%), it seems to me that interventions that really focus on the cognitive interference and the extreme attention towards nicotine associated cues and stimuli would be helpful for those quitting smoking. Maybe if we can bring the relapse numbers down at 1 week we can have a more gradual fall-out for the following month resulting in significantly higher quit rates. Interestingly, NIDA and other research organizations are getting really interested in the use of technologies like virtual reality for help in addiction training. It seems that in this context, these sorts of treatments might be useful in helping early quitters train to avoid that cognitive interference. Additionally, medication like modafinil, and maybe even other ADHD medication could be used very early on for those quitting smoking to help recover some of their ability to control their attention thereby reducing the power that nicotine associated stimuli have over them. I guess we’ll have to wait and see as those who develop interventions start integrating this research. In the meantime, I’d love to hear from readers who have quit or tried to quit: Does this research seem to support your own experiences?

Citation:

Jane Powell, Lynne Dawkins, Robert West, John Powell and Alan Pickering (2010). Relapse to smoking during unaided cessation: clinical, cognitive and motivational predictors, Psychopharmacology.

More addiction cures: Early promise for Risperidone in crystal meth addiction

A recent open label study found some support for the effectiveness of a Risperidone injection, given once every 2 weeks, in reducing crystal meth (speed) use.

The 22 patients who participated reduced their weekly crystal meth use from an average of 4 times per week to only 1 time per week. The difference between those who were able to stay completely clean and the others seemed to have to do with the levels of Risperidone in the blood.

The nice thing about using an injection as addiction treatment is that it removes the possibility of patients choosing not to take their medication on any given day. Such non-adherence to treatment is very often found to be the reason for relapse.

This study will need to be followed up by placebo-controlled double-blind studies, but given Risperidone’s action as a Dopamine antagonist, I suspect that those trials will also show a strong treatment effect. The promise of medicines as addiction treatment cures always seems great, but I believe that at best, they can be an additional tool to be used in conjunction with other therapies.

The question will be whether the side-effects common with antipsychotic medication will be well-tolerated by enough people to make the drug useful for addiction treatment.

Is opiate pain medication safe for addicts? Part II

In our previous article on pain medication and addicts we looked at how common opiate prescriptions are among people who are, or ever have been, identified as having substance abuse issues. We saw that although clinicians are often aware of the problem of possible prescription addiction developing, the issue of managing pain often results in the eventual prescription of opiate medications for chronic pain even in this population.

This time we’re going to explore whether these prescriptions end up resulting in benefits to the patients. We are going to look both at opiate and non-opiate pain relief as it applies to addicts or past addicts with chronic pain.

Pain medication benefits among addicts

Stimulant users (cocaine, amphetamines, and methamphetamine) are not expected to experience many physical or chemical (neurophysiological or neuropharmacological) changes in their brain and nervous system that would interfere with opioid medication therapy. Additionally, their use of meth, cocaine, and similar drugs is not expected to increase their experience of pain unless they’ve been injured while using those drugs. That by no way means that their drug abuse prevents them from experiencing pain, but it less of a direct influence on the future likelihood that they’ll suffer with chronic pain.

But those who do, or have, abused alcohol, benzodiazepines, and obviously opiates (heroin, morphine, oxycontin, etc.) are much more likely to be differentially affected by these medications. Physicians know this well, and in preparation for serious medical procedures specifically ask about such drug use to properly manage patients during surgery (don’t want someone waking up in the middle).

One of the most obvious factors has to do with the high tolerance opiate abusers and users build up to these drugs. For this reason, the doses often needed to help long-term opiate abusers with chronic paid using opiate pain medications can be so extreme that they would easily kill an inexperienced opiate user. We’ve talked about tolerance many times on A3, so I’ll just summarize by saying that the body and brain of opiate addicts will have a much reduced response to opiate medications because their bodies have become less sensitive to the substances in response to the extended high dose use they have put it through. This can happen through reduction in available opiate receptors as well as increased responsiveness in other regulatory systems meant to counteract the opiates (the opponent process theory).

In short, since pain perception and experience is so dependent on the body’s natural opiate response, people addicted to opiate drugs (heroin, morphine, oxycontin, vicodin) have essentially neutralized their natural pain machinery and are more likely to feel pain for an extended period after they quit. By super-activating their pain-blocking response using drugs they have weakened the body’s natural pain-response and are more likely to experience pain when they stop.

These factors are also important when considering pain medication for people in addiction treatment. Indeed, research (1) has found that patients in Methadone Maintenance programs, who are maintained on long-term opiate therapy, are more likely to experience severe pain and more likely to get opiate pain medication prescriptions for it when compared with people in drug-free residential treatment. However, the patients in the drug-free environments were more likely to have used alcohol or benzodiazepines to deal with their chronic pain, so it seems like a bit of a case of choosing between the better of two evils.

The specific medications for opiate-experience patients can also be different, and using more long-release or extended release formulations of these drugs can reduce the abuse liability of the medication itself while also offering better outcomes. I have to say though that the results differ when looking at different populations and it’s always important to consult, and be very honest and clear, with your doctor.

Overall, research suggests that opiate pain medications are as effective for patients who have a history of substance abuse as hey are in the general population (but our Part I article suggests that effectiveness is itself limited). One issue, especially for heroin addicts (or people addicted to other opiates) who are in recovery or active use is balancing pain management with potential abuse problems. Unfortunately, it is true that the medications most effective in treating the pain are also the ones most likely to be abused (2). Our next article is going to cover the issues of prescription abuse in this population but I think it’s important to point out that chronic pain can be debilitating in itself and that it is likely not useful to withhold medication from someone because of the possibility that they will abuse it if the medication itself will help them.

There are certainly approaches to pain-management that do not use medication (exercises, meditation, cognitive behavioral approaches, and more) and an initial recommendation can be that those be tried first, followed by non-opiate pain-relief and then the opiates. However, other options do not manage to deliver results, opiate pain medication can be effective in managing pain symptoms, especially if physicians are aware of methods to spot abuse and control it.

Next up – how to identify prescription abuse in patients, what does it mean, and what should we do about it?

Citations:

1. Rosenblum, Joseph, Fong, Kipnis, Cleland, and Portenoy (2003). Prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain among chemically dependent patients in methadone maintenance and residential treatment facilities. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 2370-2378.

2. College on Problems of Drug Dependence taskforce on prescription opioid non-medical use and abuse: position statement.

Is opiate pain medication safe for addicts? Part I

A recent user question on VYou (see my response here) addressed the issue of prescribing addicts with opioid pain medication. Since prescription medication abuse and addiction is on the rise and getting more and more attention in the media every year, the question of whether addicts in recovery, or people who have dealt with substance abuse and addiction problems in the past, should be prescribed these medications is a very relevant one.

Chronic pain affects a substantial portion of the population worldwide (as many as 30%, see here). Opiate medications are one of the most commonly used approaches to treating such pain, which if untreated can cause serious disruptions to sufferers’ lives. Even when treated, chronic pain can be pretty debilitating. Some research (1) brings up good questions about the true effectiveness of opiate therapy for chronic pain, especially among long-term opiate users (like heroin and prescription pain medication addicts) but also among other drug using populations.

So how common is the practice? What sort of results do drug addicts usually get from these opiate therapies? And finally, how many of the addicts or drug abusers who receive these therapies end up abusing them and can we identify those people early so we can stop prescribing to them? In this three-part series of articles we’re going to cover these questions in-depth.

Prescription pain medication use in addict populations

Clinicians treating chronic back pain choose from a range of options, including opioid medications, exercise therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, tricyclic antidepressants, acupuncture, and electrical stimulation. One study (1)  found wide variability in the percent of chronic pain patients prescribed opioids (from 3%-66%) although the studies varied widely in their size and population served – some even looks at general back pain and not chronic pain alone (they tended to have much lower opioid prescription percentages). Among chronic pain clinic patients, chronic opioid pain medication use was estimated at 19% (2).

Among addicted populations, concerns about tolerance, withdrawal, and abuse tend to cut prescription rates for opioid pain medications. However, past drug abuse can exacerbate pain issues, especially for people who abuse, or have abused, opiates in the past. For this reason, it can sometimes be difficult to properly manage pain in people with a history of addiction. One study (3) found that as many as 67% of patients in a Methadone Maintenance Program and 52% of patients in short term residential treatment programs were being prescribed opiates for pain. It’s important to note that these numbers are higher than those reported in other studies but that populations in treatment do generally show prescription rates higher than the general population. A study in Finland (a country that has great medical record data) found that opiate prescription rates in substance abuse populations were equivalent (not higher or lower) to those in the general population. The College of Problems on Drug Dependence itself had released an official statement noting that a balance must be reached between fear of opioid prescriptions for pain and the usefulness of opioid pain medication for chronic and severe pain (4).

Interestingly, it seems that of all opioid pain medication prescriptions, the largest increases in troubling use has been around oxycodone (Oxycontin), which gets mentioned as often in emergency departments (ED) around the country even though it is prescribed about one-third as often as hydrocodone (Vicodin). This is less surprising when you consider the fact that many addicts report using oxycontin in different ways including smoking, snorting, and injecting the stuff, which is stronger and does not have the same amount of fillers as most hydrocodone preparations. The fact that oxycodone is stronger also means it is more effective for pain relief through higher activation of the opioid system that is relevant for addiction.

In our next piece we are going to explore whether opiate pain medication is helpful in controlling pain among addicts and substance abusers, see you then!

Citations:

1. Martell, O’Connor, Kerns, Becker, Morales, Kosten, Fiellin. (2007). Systematic Review: Opioid Treatment for Chronic Back Pain: Prevalence, Efficacy, and Association with Addiction. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146, 116-127.

2. Chabal, Erjavec, Jacobson, Mariano, Chaney (1997). Prescription Opiate Abuse in Chronic Pain Patients: Clinical Criteria, Incidence, and Predictors. Clinical Journal of Pain, 13, 150-155.

3. Rosenblum, Joseph, Fong, Kipnis, Cleland, and Portenoy (2003). Prevalence and characteristics of chronic pain among chemically dependent patients in methadone maintenance and residential treatment facilities. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 2370-2378.

4. College on Problems of Drug Dependence taskforce on prescription opioid non-medical use and abuse: position statement.

Promising new medical treatment options for drug addiction!!!

Researchers are attacking the issue of drug addiction from multiple angles, and the results seem to be more and more ways to help. Some promising new developments in pharmacological (as in medication) therapies include a new cocaine-vaccine, as well as expanded use of Buprenorphine, for the treatment of opiate (heroin, morphine) addiction.

  • These medications are best used along with behavioral treatment in order to increase to probability of treatment success.
  • By reducing cravings, as well as reducing the effects of the drugs themselves, these medications can increase the length of time that patients will stay in treatment, which is the most reliable way of producing better treatment outcomes.

What else is new aside from medications?

There are also some exciting developments in the behavioral treatment, including Contingency Management (CM), a treatment method that tries to reteach addicts positive, drug-free behaviors by reinforcing those over the use of drugs. While some people still have problems with programs that use CM because of the notion of rewarding drug addicts for not using drugs, I say use whatever works!

Lastly, as early as 2003, researchers have noted that proper drug treatment may take longer than the 14-30 day programs that are currently being offered (1). In fact, while the article I’m referring too speaks specifically about methamphetamine addiction, we now know that the long use of many drugs, including cocaine, leads to long lasting brain changes that can take up to a year to show significant recovery.

I personally think that proper drug treatment for long time addicts (anyone with more than a year or so of heavy use) should take on the order of 6 months to a year, and should be supplemented by some outpatient post-care for an extended period of time (I’m far from the only one calling for this, see article 2). It’s the only sensible thing to do given the long term changes that such drug use creates in the brain…

I think it’s about time that insurance companies step up the plate and recognize that the huge cost of drug problems for our society (estimated at more than $100 billion annually) can be vastly reduced by providing sound, scientifically based, medical treatment options for those who need it.

citations:
(1) Margaret Cretzmeyer M.S.W, Mary Vaughan Sarrazin Ph.D., Diane L. Huber Ph.D., R.N., FAAN, CNAAc, Robert I. Block Ph.D. & James A. Hall Ph.D., LISW( 2003) Treatment of methamphetamine abuse: research findings and clinical directions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment Volume 24.
(2)
A. Thomas McLellan, PhD; David C. Lewis, MD; Charles P. O’Brien, MD, PhD; Herbert D. Kleber, MD (2000). Drug Dependence, a Chronic Medical Illness: Implications for Treatment, Insurance, and Outcomes Evaluation. Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 284, pp. 1689-1695.

Question of the day:
Do you know anyone who’s been through residential drug treatment?
How long were they in for?
How many times?
Did it help?

Correlation, causation, and association – What does it all mean???

A comment posted by a reader on a post reprimanded me for suggesting that marijuana caused relationships to go bad.

In this instance the reader was mistaken, as I had specifically used the word “associated”, but the comment made me think that maybe I should explain the differences between correlation, causation, and association. I’m a scientist studying addiction, and in the field, it’s very important to be clear about what each of the words you use means.

Being clear about inferences in research

Correlation – When researchers find a correlation, which can also be called an association, what they are saying is that they found a relationship between two, or more, variables. For instance, in the case of the marijuana post, the researchers found an association between using marijuana as a teen, and having more troublesome relationships in mid, to late, twenties.

Correlations can be positive – so that as one variable (marijuana smoking) goes up, so does the other (relationship trouble); or they can be negative, which would mean that as one variable goes up (methamphetamine smoking) another goes down (grade point average).

The trouble is that, unless they are properly controlled for, there could be other variables affecting this relationship that the researchers don’t know about. For instance, education, gender, and mental health issues could be behind the marijuana-relationship association (these variables were all controlled for by the researchers in that study). Researchers have at their disposal a number of sophisticated statistical tools to control for these, ranging from the relatively simple (like multiple regression) to the highly complex and involved (multi-level modeling and structural equation modeling). These methods allow researchers to separate the effect of one variable from others, thereby leaving them more confident in making assertions about the true nature of the relationships they found. Still, even under the best analysis circumstances, correlation is not the same as causation.

Causation – When an article says that causation was found, this means that the researchers found that changes in one variable they measured directly caused changes in the other. An example would be research showing that jumping of a cliff directly causes great physical damage. In order to do this, researchers would need to assign people to jump off a cliff (versus lets say jumping off of a 12 inch ledge) and measure the amount of physical damage caused. When they find that jumping off the cliff causes more damage, they can assert causality. Good luck recruiting for that study!

Most of the research you read about indicates a correlation between variables, not causation. You can find the key words by carefully reading. If the article says something like “men were found to have,” or “women were more likely to,” they’re talking about associations, not causation.

Why the correlation-causation difference?

The reason is that in order to actually be able to claim causation, the researchers have to split the participants into different groups, and randomly assign some to the behavior or condition they want to study (like taking a new drug), while the rest receive something else. This is in fact what happens in clinical trials of medication because the FDA requires proof that the medication actually makes people better (more so than a placebo). It’s this random assignment to conditions (or randomization) that makes experiments suitable for the discovery of causality. Unlike in association studies, random assignment assures (if everything is designed correctly) that its the behavior being studied, and not some other random effect, that is causing the outcome.

Obviously, it is much more difficult to prove causation than it is to prove an association.

Should we just ignore associations?

No! Not at all!!! Not even close!!! Correlations are crucial for research and still need to be looked at and studied, especially in some areas of research like addiction.

The reason is simple – We can’t randomly give people drugs like methamphetamine as children and study their brain development to see how the stuff affects them, that would be unethical. So what we’re left with is a the study of what meth use (and use of other drugs) is associated with. It’s for this reason that researchers use special statistical methods to assess associations, making certain that they are also considering other things that may be interfering with their results.

In the case of the marijuana article, the researchers ruled out a number of other interfering variables known to affect relationships, like aggression, gender, education, closeness with other family members, etc. By doing so, they did their best to assure that the association found between marijuana and relationship status was real. Obviously other possibilities exist, but as more researchers assess this relationship in different ways, we’ll learn more about its true nature.

This is how research works.

It’s also how we found out that smoking causes cancer. Through endlessly repeated findings showing an association. That turned out pretty well, I think…

Body image and medicalization: Socially relevant behavioral “addictions” beyond drug use

We know that addiction can go beyond drug use, but are we becoming addicted to making our bodies perfect?

I put “addiction” in parentheses here because I think it’s important to distinguish substance-related addictions from behavioral ones. There’s no doubt that people’s behavior can become compulsive in the same way addicts become compulsive about using, but I’ve seen no evidence that behavioral addictions interfere with brain function in the way that cocaine, methamphetamine, and opiates alter actual brain mechanisms.

Still, this recent trend of obsessive plastic surgery is a dual-headed “addiction”, one that is both physical and social.  In many ways, people are now able to change aspects of their being that were once thought unalterable including their own physical appearances. To gain social acceptance, if you have money, you now have new tools!

This may also play a big role for those who are love addicted, at least if they have money… Continue reading “Body image and medicalization: Socially relevant behavioral “addictions” beyond drug use”