Advertisement

Toward a Biopsychosocial Theory of Substance Abuse

  • Mark Galizio
  • Stephen A. Maisto
Part of the Perspectives on Individual Differences book series (PIDF)

Abstract

Theoretical integration of the fast-accumulating literature in the substance abuse field has been sadly lacking. Most theories have been developed from a single perspective or level of analysis, and in many cases they were inconsistent with data from other approaches on the day the theory was published. For example, Peele (1981) reviewed several theoretical approaches that emphasized that a complete “answer” to substance abuse problems was to be found by analysis of genetic or biochemical factors alone. As Peele showed, these analyses completely ignored other data that clearly indicated the importance of environmental and psychosocial factors. Yet in the same paper, Peele proposed a theoretical approach that denied the importance of any biological factors! To illustrate the current lack of integration in the field, consider again the recent edited collection on drug abuse theory (Lettieri, Sayers, & Pearson, 1980) that included over 40 completely distinct theories. Particularly noteworthy in the Lettieri et al. collection was that most of the theories tended to incorporate only a narrow band of data, and their generalizability beyond a highly limited domain appeared poor. Clearly, there is a need for theoretical integration in the substance abuse field, and a careful inspection of the preceding chapters should convince the reader that such integration will require a model that incorporates factors from several disciplines: in short, a “biopsychosocial” model.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ewing, J. A. Biopsychosocial approaches to drinking and alcoholism. In W. E. Fann, 1. Karacan, A. D. Pokorny, and. R. L. Williams (Eds.), Phenomenology and Treatment of Alcoholism. New York: Spectrum, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Lettieri, D. J., Sayers, M., and, Pearson, H. W. (Eds.). Theories on Drug Abuse: Selected Contemporary Perspectives (NIDA Research Monograph 30). Rockville, Md.: National Institute of Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  3. Moos, R. H., and. Finney, J. W. The expanding scope of alcoholism treatment evaluation. American Psychologist, 1983, 38, 1036–1044.Google Scholar
  4. Peele, S. Reductionism in the psychology of the eighties: Can biochemistry eliminate addiction, mental illness, and pain? American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 807–818.Google Scholar
  5. Peterson, J. Segal, B. and. Heasley, R. Perception of alcohol and alcoholism among Alaskan communities. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 1979, 25, 31–35.Google Scholar
  6. Schwartz, G. E. Testing the biopsychosocial model: The ultimate challenge facing behavioral medicine. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1982, 50, 1040–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schaefer, J. M. Firewater myths revisited: Review of findings and some new directions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,1981, Supplement #9, 99–117.Google Scholar
  8. Segal, B. Alcohol and alcoholism in Alaska: Research in a multicultural and transitional society. The International Journal of Addictions, 1983, 18, 379–392.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Galizio
    • 1
  • Stephen A. Maisto
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina at WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations