From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force.


The article is more than once stating American Psychological Association where as far as I can tell the context suggests American Psychiatric Association? EverSince (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Should "Recovery movement" wikilink to Recovery model, or are the two somewhat different? The latter has tended to neglect the addiction aspect (partly my fault) but doens't have to I assume. EverSince (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


What about Wikiaholics and Wikiaddiction? :-)

9IDLGT3IET (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What about love? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Psychological Dependency[edit]

Beneath this paragraph are another two paragraphs that read as follows:

A person who is Physically dependent, but not psychologically dependent can have their dose slowly dropped until they are no longer dependent. However, if that person is psychologically dependent, they are still at serious risk for relapse into abuse and subsequent physical dependence.

Psychological dependence does not have to be limited only to substances; even activities and behavioral patterns can be considered addictions, if they become uncontrollable, e.g. gambling, Internet addiction, computer addiction, sexual addiction / pornography addiction, reading, eating, self-harm, vandalism, drug addiction or work addiction.

Not only do these paragraphs not meet Wikipedia standards, but they also contain independent research and non-fact-based discussion. -- (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just passing by, but...[edit]

The addiction page is currently an article about World of Warcraft, and I doubt it's supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

criteria addiction[edit]

Caretti, Craparo and La Barbera (2005) recently proposed a new definition of addiction. The authors states that addiction is “a syndromic condition characterized by a recurrent and reiterated search for pleasure derived from a specific dependence behavior, associated with abuse, craving, clinically significant stress, and compulsive dependence actions despite the possible negative consequences” (p. 17); they also discuss how the severity of addiction could be assessed considering the impact of obsessivity, impulsivity and compulsivity in generating and sustaining the dependence behaviors. The new rationale for the diagnosis of Addiction is described by the following criteria (La Barbera, Caretti, Craparo, 2005):

ADDICTION A. Persistent and recurrent behaviors of addiction. The behaviors are maladaptive and lead to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by five (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period: with at least two by (1), whose one is (c), two by (2) and one by (3). 1) Obsessivity a) recurrent thoughts and images about the experience of dependence, or ideas related to dependence (e.g. being totally absorbed in mentally reliving experiences of dependence happened in the past, fantasizing or planning about the future behaviours and experiences of dependence); b) the dependence thoughts or the images are intrusive and cause inappropriate tension and arousal, as well as clinically significant anxiety and discomfort; c) the subject is aware that dependence thoughts and images are produced by the mind, and they are not provoked by external stimuli. 2) Impulsivity a) restlessness, anxiety, irritability or distress when it’s not possible to enact the dependence behaviour; b) recurrent failure in resisting the inappropriate desires of dependence and self-regulating the impulses to enact the behavior of dependence. 3) Compulsivity a) the person feels obliged to enact repeatedly the dependence behavior, even against his or her own will, despite the negative consequences. b) the coercive addictive behaviours and actions are finalized to avoid or prevent states of mental and physic pain, or to alleviate a disphoric mood (e.g. feelings of irritability, impotence, guilt or shame).

B. Thoughts or behaviors related to the addiction occur frequently and repeatedly during the day, and they significantly interfere with normal habits, social functioning, activities and relationships. C. Thoughts and behaviors of addiction do not occur only during a maniac episode or in reason of a general medical condition.

Inside this work we propose a further teorical elaboration of Addictions on the basis of our researches about alexythimic, traumatic and dissociative aspects common to many different addictive behaviors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Casual addiction[edit]

There's a section in this article marked "Casual Addiction." However, no references are provided in that section, and -- though I'm not a psychologist -- I'm a somewhat skeptical whether that's a valid scientific term. (Actually I tried to flag this yesterday but it probably wasnt a great idea to place a "[citation needed]" tag within a section heading :) ) Thanks -- (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction[edit]

I tried to copyedit some clarity, verifiablity and neutrality into this section but in the end I decided to remove it completely:
Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction
Understanding the reward circuit is critical in understanding addiction. The National Institute on Drug Abuse describes the reward circuit as a process that “links together a number of brain structures that control and regulate our ability to feel pleasure.” Feeling pleasure motivates us to repeat behaviors. In essence, the reward circuit has evolved within us to reward and encourage our natural behaviors that help ensure our survival, like eating and reproducing. Each time the reward system is stimulated the brain takes specific note of the activity. The more we engage in a pleasurable act the more we learn to repeat it, eventually without even thinking about it. The problem with illicit drugs is that they not only activate the reward circuit, they hijack it, producing more pleasurable feelings than our brains could possibly produce on their own. All illegal drugs target the brain’s reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine. Dopamine is a specific neurotransmitter found in areas of the brain related to emotion, cognition, motivation, and specifically pleasure. Drugs over stimulate this system releasing anywhere from two to ten times the amount of dopamine as any natural reward. The pleasure felt from drug use then dwarfs that felt from naturally rewarding behaviors such as food, music, or sex, and explains why drugs are more addictive than these naturally rewarding acts. This powerful reward motivates people to take drugs again and again by producing the euphoric feelings sought by addicts. As humans we are wired to repeat actions by associating them with reward. This is ultimately, as NIDA describes, what “drive[s] the compulsive drug abuse that marks addiction.”
It was either removing it or plastering {{fact}} tags all over it. The paragraph is an inaccurate oversimplification of facts. It also jumps to conclusions without any source or ref. Not encyclopedic at all. It has been added to three articles (Addiction, Drug addiction, and Reward system) by what appears to be an SPA editor. Any comments? Yintaɳ  08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Abortion addiction[edit]

Certain pro-life activists have highlighted the phenomenon of abortion addictions in certain women as evidence that abortion is very often not a choice, but rather that it is much closer to the status of a social pathology. It might a good thing if we could a least have a stub on this matter. [1] ADM (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Request Comment, St. Augustine's conversion[edit]

After spending time following the Article page Augustine of Hippo and Confessions (St. Augustine) and following the History of The Conversion of Saint Augustine in his original Confessions and references to his many writings as Bishop of Hippo, I discovered he went from an addict to being completely cured.

His steps on this journey show he stumbled upon the key to this. I'v used this study in my work situation to good effect.

The study and research would be my own original research and not entrable on a wikipedia article page, but then original confessions and steps themselves would be free of copyright.

I'v written on the talk pages of both article pages to this effect.

Anyone out there thinks like me or want to challenge me or my words?

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Having "computer addiction" in the beginning of the article is deceiving ![edit]

Since it is not sure if to include it as an addiction. Putting it in the same line as gambling addiction is problematic... Talgalili (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Positive / Negative addictions[edit]

Just added {{fact}} x 4. Would like too see citations on the concept of positive and negative addictions. Martinor (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Most of this page is redundant to other, better referenced articles. Does anybody object if I cut out the "Behavioral addiction" piece into its own article, and then disambiguate? --Arcadian (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My gut instinct is this was not a good move. I wouldn't dice up an important topic into a separate low level articles that each read like a medical journal. --MarsRover (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Exercise Addiction[edit]

The types of behavioral addiction could be greatly expanded on, like exercise addiction and the biological & psychological factors play their own adjacent roles.--Vkraft (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

SciAm resource[edit]

From Talk:Epigenetics ...

Epigenetics Offers New Clues to Mental Illness "Experience may contribute to mental illness in a surprising way: by causing "epigenetic" changes—ones that turn genes on or off without altering the genes themselves" Scientific American November 30, 2011 by Eric J. Nestler; excerpt ...

Studies in mice demonstrate a role for long-lasting epigenetic modifications in such disorders as addiction and depression. Epigenetic changes can also affect maternal behaviors in ways that reproduce the same behaviors in their offspring, even though the changes are not passed down through the germline. (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

See Regulation of gene expression. (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

potential resource[edit]

Every drug is the ‘deadliest drug,’ especially oxycodone vy Cassie Rodenberg Scientific American December 28, 2011

Internal links ... (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement[edit]

To improve this article you might want to consider including medical definition of what addiction is (i.e. the definition provided by the DSM). Also, you may want to include different theories of addiction, more comprehensive look at the different types of addiction, and treatment.

Dirkster07 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Addiction Vs. dependence[edit]

this article continues to confuse the difference between addiction and dependency. The DSM IV added to this confusion when the decided to lose the term addiction in place of Dependence. They, Hopefully, will be putting it back in with the next revision coming out soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Some changes[edit]

Hi folks, I have made some major changes to this page. More changes will be coming soon - I plan on adding in a section on the biological mechanisms, and a brief bit on cognitive theories relating to addiction. I am doing this for my MA psyc course, and your patience would be greatly appreciated. I will be done with this page by the middle of April, at which point should you choose to delete my work, that's ok... just please refrain from doing so before hand. Thank you for your cooperation. Dirkster07 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


Dirkster07, I changed wording in few places. Other than that, all my edits were mostly "cosmetic" in nature, i.e. I made some major concepts bold, so they are easy to find and I used bullet points to make lists. Some pointers:

  1. You could link some concepts to existing Wikipedia pages, so then you wouldn’t have to define them.
  2. You could include some names of researchers working in this area, especially when you are talking about examples of some research.
  3. You could consider to restating this sentence: “Individuals differ in the way by which they metabolize substances, such as alcohol, these positive reinforcing effects are predetermined.”
  4. Since Gray's reinforcement sensitivity theory is already defined and has its own Wikipedia page, you could probably make this section much shorter, because you do not need to define and explain this theory. You should probably just talk about its connection to addiction.

(Kasob (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC))

Addiction Edits[edit]

The introduction focuses on the negative aspects of addiction. Are there any positive aspects to include in your introduction? For instance, you might want to add a few sentences or a paragraph on withdrawal or the positive aspects of recovery. You might want to consider a paragraph about intervention as well and link the content to the internal wiki pages on intervention, withdrawal, and recovery. (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Substance Dependence - You might want to link to the DSM on Wikipedia and add a few sentences on what the DSM is (e.g., purpose, classification system, used by clinical psychologists and medical professions to diagnose and treat psychological / psychiatric disorders). This might provide a sauguay for a paragraph on the medical model of addiction treatment, which could allow you to present other / alternative treatments of addiction. 15015OakBriar (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Negative Affect - the discussion seems to imply 'drug addiction'. You might consider adding a sentence or two to discuss whether or not these findings can generalize to the other forms of addiction you mention above like sex addiction or perhaps gambling or even becoming a workaholic. 15015OakBriar (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Positive Affect - in the second paragraph, you may want to add a few sentences about crack cocaine and it's quick addictive potential. Addicts tend to spend the rest of their addiction trying to reach the intensity of pleasure (re: orgasmic) that they experienced during the first trip. There is research showing that crack activates certain pleasure areas of the brain. 15015OakBriar (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting paragraph on anhedonia. Seems to prove that there are physiological and psychological costs to a life of addiction. 15015OakBriar (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Gray's Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory - I think this section should be divided into two paragraphs (e.g., first paragraph defines the theory and describes pertinent linkages between variables and the outcome of addiction. A second paragraph to discuss significant findings that confirm the theory). It seems rushed and not as informative as it could be. 15015OakBriar (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Model of Impulsivity. Is this a two-factor model of addiction or does the model explain other behaviors as well? 15015OakBriar (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC). The last two sentences in this paragraph are not clear. Should family history moderate the relationship between RI and addiction. The relationship between poor decision-making and RI seems intuitive but does not predict / explain addictive behavior. So, this finding may not be relevant to this page. This paragraph took the longest to process and provide feedback on for me. This might be an indication that others might find it difficult to read or gain information from. You might consider revising it. 15015OakBriar (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent contributions! The page has much better content thanks to your knowledge in the field and contribution. Your reference section is awesome and very well documented. Please take my questions, recommendations, and very minor editorial changes in a spirit of making the Addiction page number one on Google search.15015OakBriar (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Positive/negative affect and substance use[edit]

"[...] Negative affect increase the likelihood of initiation of substance use", but at the same time "individuals high in positive affect are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, such as drug use". So who's more likely then who, exactly? Litawor (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The way I read the article, individuals with a negative affect that's higher than normal are more at risk than individuals with a normal or low negative affect. Those with either a high or low positive affect are more at risk than those with a normal affect.
It sounds like this identifies three (overlapping) categories (high negative aspect, high positive affect, low positive affect) are at a higher risk than normal (i.e., individuals with no affective disorders, or a low negative affect but normal positive affect). It does not establish a total ordering, so there's no indication about whether (for instance) an individual with high positive and negative aspect is at higher risk than an individual with a low positive aspect. Presumably, there haven't been sufficient studies to determine a total ordering; such an ordering would be useful only in very limited circumstances.
It may be more clear if the section had a link to an article describing positive and negative affect; a reader not acquainted with these terms might have confusion about terms like "low positive affect". Curiously, a brief search didn't find such an article; Affect (psychology) only mentions it briefly. -- Piquan (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

addiction biology subsection leads to an article on a medical journal titled addiction biology and doesn't cover the subject[edit]

addiction biology subsection leads to an article on a medical journal titled addiction biology and doesn't cover the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done – I removed Addiction Biology from Biological mechanisms section. Senator2029 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Impact of recent student edits[edit]

This article has recently been edited by students as part of their course work for a university course. As part of the quality metrics for the education program, we would like to determine what level of burden is placed on Wikipedia's editors by student coursework.

If you are an editor of this article who spent time correcting edits to it made by the students, please tell us how much time you spent on cleaning up the article. Please note that we are asking you to estimate only the negative effects of the students' work. If the students added good material but you spent time formatting it or making it conform to the manual of style, or copyediting it, then the material added was still a net benefit, and the work you did improved it further. If on the other hand the students added material that had to be removed, or removed good material which you had to replace, please let us know how much time you had to spend making those corrections. This includes time you may have spent posting to the students' talk pages, or to Wikipedia noticeboards, or working with them on IRC, or any other time you spent which was required to fix problems created by the students' edits. Any work you did as a Wikipedia Ambassador for that student's class should not be counted.

Please rate the amount of time spent as follows:

  • 0 -No unproductive work to clean up
  • 1 - A few minutes of work needed
  • 2 - Between a few minutes and half an hour of work needed
  • 3 - Half an hour to an hour of work needed
  • 4 - More than an hour of work needed

Please also add any comments you feel may be helpful. We welcome ratings from multiple editors on the same article. Add your input here. Thanks! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See Also - a comprehensive list of addictions[edit]

Can a link to a comprehensive list of addictions be added to the "see also" section of this article? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture at top of page[edit]

Consider removing. The status of the subject as a 'possible addict' is speculative at best and libelous at worst. It adds nothing to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

FOSB etc.[edit]

While the FOSB stuff looks plausible, I think it's radically oversimplifying things to state that it is the mechanism of addiction, as if the matter was settled beyond doubt, and these massive text dumps go way beyond what's needed. At the moment, I think it can best be regarded as a hypothesis.

The current text dump is way too much, discounts all the other theories, and, I believe, doesn't meet the requitements of the WP:NPOV policy to balance and attribute statements.

What would make more sense, and would meet the WP:NPOV requirement, would be a statement on the lines of "Several researches, most notably Dr. X and Professor Y, have put forward the hypothesis that ...", to then describe the theory briefly, and then point the reader at the FOSB article for more detail. -- The Anome (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about our problems and make them go away.[edit]

Hi. My name's Hulk. I'm addicted to lying about my name.

Now that that's out of the way, I've been referred here by a concerned and angry citizen.

I can't see the point of singling out drug addiction as its own thing in the lead of an article about general addiction, especially before the part about the main topic. Can you?

Just another rewarding thing that people crave. I get that there's a specific subtopic article for it, and I'm not against Wikilinking it in the lead. Just should go with the others in Paragraph 2. Probably first in that list, since it's the most famous, but not bigger than addiction itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

So should I take the silence to mean nobody else sees the point either? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
Behavioral addiction and drug addiction are a dichotomy. Stop editing the lead sentence. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 19:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Dichotomies are for opposites. There's a slight difference between compulsively seeking rewarding sex and compulsively seeking rewarding drugs, but only as much as between rewarding food and rewarding gambling. Not two different things.
I'll stop removing it from the lead when I get a more sensible reason to keep it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:34, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
A drug isn't a natural reward. Added: I meant it's this. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed "natural" and re-piped to the more encompassing reward system. Seem fair? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
As for this, there's no mutual exclusivity. Plenty of people are addicted to drugs and gambling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, November 22, 2014 (UTC)
Mutual exclusivity simply means no element belongs in both categories... In any event, it's fine with the current language. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright. Then we're mutually content. "Stimuli" works. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, November 22, 2014 (UTC)