Behavioral Approaches to Individual Differences in Substance Abuse

Drug-taking Behavior
  • Robert J. Barrett
Part of the Perspectives on Individual Differences book series (PIDF)

Abstract

The plethora of theories that attempt to account for substance abuse include a bewildering assortment drawn from a broad cross-section of the life sciences. Recently, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Lettieri, Sayers, and Pearson, 1980) reviewed 43 contemporary theories of drug abuse, representing nine different disciplines, including psychiatry, sociology, criminology, anthropology, biology, genetics, biomedical sciences, and psychology. Within psychology alone the theories were further subdivided into general, learning, social, and developmental psychology. Abbreviated titles such as life theme, family, neuropharmacological, bioanthropological, self-derrogation, incomplete mourning, existential, biological rhythm, ego/self, conditioning, and interactive framework theory were described as representative selections from contemporary perspectives. Although some of the theories involved concepts from more than one discipline, few of them would qualify as truly multidisciplinary in approach.

Keywords

Withdrawal Symptom Federation Proceeding Opponent Process Reward Threshold Psychological Dependence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adam, K., Adamson, L. Brezinova, V., Hunter, W. M., and Oswald, I. Nitrazepam: Lastingly effective but trouble on withdrawal. British Medical Journal, 1976, 1, 1558–1560.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, B. K., and Hadaway, P. F’. Opiate addiction: The case for an adaptive orientation. Psychological Bulletin, 1982, 92, 367–381.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, S., and Oswald, I. Anxiety and sleep after fosazepam. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1976, 3, 165–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. L., Leith, N. J., and Barrett, H. J. Tolerance to amphetamine’s facilitation of self- stimulation responding: Anatomical specificity. Brain Research, 1978, 145, 37–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Axelrod, J. Studies on sympathomimetic amines. II. The biotransformation and physiological disposition of d-amphetamine. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1954, 110, 315.Google Scholar
  6. Balster, H. L., and Schuster, C. B. A comparison of d-amphetamine, 1-amphetamine, and methamphetamine self-administration in rhesus monkeys. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1973, 1, 67–71.Google Scholar
  7. Balster, H. L., Aigner, T. G., Carney, J. M., and Harris, L. S. Intravenous self-administration procedures as part of a preclinical abuse liability evaluation program for analgesic drugs. Problems of drug dependence. Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Scientific Meeting, Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, 1977, 394–411.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Barnett, M. L. Alcoholism in the Cantonese of New York City: An anthropological study. In O.Google Scholar
  9. Diethelm (Ed.), Etiology of chronic alcoholism. Springville, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1955. Barrett, R. J. Manuscript in preparation, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. Barrett, R. J., and, Leith, N. J. Tolerance to the discriminative stimulus properties of amphetamine. Neuropharmacology, 1981, 20, 251–255.Google Scholar
  11. Barrett, R. J., and Steranka, L. R. Drug-discrimination in rats: Evidence for amphetamine-like cue state following chronic haloperidol. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1983, 18, 611–617.Google Scholar
  12. Barrett, R. J., and. White, D. K. Reward system depression following chronic amphetamine: Antagonism by haloperidol. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1980, 13, 555–559.Google Scholar
  13. Barrett, R. J., and White, D. K. Increased reward thresholds in rats following chronic amphetamine. Federation Proceedings, 1981, 40, 277 (abstract).Google Scholar
  14. Behar, D., and Winokur, G. Research in alcoholism and depression. A two-way street under construction. In H. W. Pickens Si. L. L. Heston (Eds.), Psychiatric factors in drug abuse, New York: Grune and Stratton, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. Bixler, E. O., Kales, A., Soldatos, C. R., and. Kales, J. D. Flunitrazepam, an investigational hypnotic drug: Sleep laboratory evaluations. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1977, 17, 569–578.Google Scholar
  16. Bixler, E. O., Kales, A., Soldatos, C. R., Scharf, M. B., and Kales, J. D. Effectiveness of temazepam with short-, intermediate-, and long-term use: Sleep laboratory evaluation. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1978, 18, 110–118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cannon, W. B., and Rosenbleuth, A. (Eds.), The supersensitivity of denervated structures. New York: Macmillan, 1949.Google Scholar
  18. Carlsson, A., and Lindquist, M. Effect of chlorpromazine or haloperidol on formation of 3methoxytyramine and normetanephrine in mousç brain. Acta Pharmacologica et Toxicologia, 1963, 20, 140–144.Google Scholar
  19. Colpaert, F. C. Discriminative stimulus properties of narcotic analgesic drugs. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1978, 9, 863–887.Google Scholar
  20. Colpaert, F. C., Kuyps, J. M. D., Niemegeers, C. J. E., and Janssen, P. A. J. Discriminative stimulus properties of fentanyl and morphine: Tolerance and dependence. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1976, 5, 401–408.Google Scholar
  21. Colpaert, F. C., Niemegeers, C.J. E., and Janssen, P. A. J. Studies on the regulation of sensitivity to the narcotic cue. Psychopharmacology, 1978, 17, 705–713.Google Scholar
  22. Connolly, M. E., Briant, R. H., George, C. F., and Dollery, C. T. A crossover comparison of clonidine and methyldopa in hypertension. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1972, 4, 222–227.Google Scholar
  23. Davitz, J. R., Mason, D. J., Mowrer, O. H., and Virek, P. Conditioning of fear: A function of delay of reinforcement. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 69–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Deitrich, R. A., and. McClearn, G. E. Neurobiological and genetic aspects of the etiology of alcoholism. Federation Proceedings, 1981, 40, 2051–2055.Google Scholar
  25. Deneau, G. A., Yanagita, T., and Seevers, M. H. Self-administration of psychoactive substances by the monkey. A measure of psychological dependence. Psychopharmacologia, 1969, 16, 30–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. de Villiers, P. Choice in concurrent schedules and a quantitative formulation of the law of effect. In W. K. Honig and J. E. R. Staddon (Eds.), Handbook of operant behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  27. Dews, P. B. The behavioral context of addiction. In L. Goldberg and F. Hoffmeister (Eds.), Psychic dependence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1973.Google Scholar
  28. Ettenberg, A., and Milner, P. J. Effects of dopamine supersensitivity on lateral hypothalmic self-stimulation in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1977, 7, 507–514.Google Scholar
  29. Ettenberg, A., and Wise, R. A. Non-selective enhancement of locus coeruleus and substantia nigra self-stimulation after termination of chronic dopaminergic receptor blockade with pimozide in rats. Psychopharmacology Communication, 1976, 7, 117–124.Google Scholar
  30. Ewing, J. A., Rouse, B. A., and Aderhold, R. M. Studies of the mechanism of Oriental hypersensitivity to alcohol. In M. Galanter (Ed.), Currents in alcoholism: Biomedical issues and clinical effects of alcoholism (Vol. 5 ). New York: Grune and Stratton, 1979.Google Scholar
  31. Finch, G. Salivary conditioning in atropinized dogs. American Journal of Physiology, 1938, 124, 136–141.Google Scholar
  32. Fischmann, M. W. Evaluating the abuse potential of psychotropic drugs in man. In T. Thompson and K. R. Una (Eds.), Predicting dependence liability of stimulant and depressant drugs. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  33. Fischmann, M. W., Schuster, C. R., Resnekov, L., Fennel, W., Shick, J. F. E., and Krasnegor, N. A. Cardiovascular and subjective effects of intravenous cocaine in man. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1976, 33, 983–989.Google Scholar
  34. Forrest, A. D. Depressive changes after fluphenazine treatment. British Medical Journal, 1969, 4, 169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Fouriezos, G., and Wise, R. A. Pimozide-induced extinction of intracranial self-stimulation: Response patterns rule out motor or performance defects. Brain Research, 1976, 103, 377–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Franklin, K. B. J. Catecholamines and self-stimulation: Reward and performance deficits dissociated. Pharmacology, = Biochemistry and Behavior, 1978, 9, 813–820.Google Scholar
  37. Friedhoff, A. J., and Alpert, M. Receptor sensitivity modification as a potential treatment. In M. A. Lipton, A. DiMascio, and K. F. Killam (Eds.), Psychopharmacology: A generation of progress. New York: Raven Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  38. Fukui, M., and Wakasugo, L. Liver alcohol dehydrogenase in a Japanese population. Japanese Journal of Legal Medicine, 1972, 26, 46–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Geller, I., and Seifter, J. The effects of meprobamate, barbiturates, d-amphetamine and promazine on experimentally induced conflict in the rat. Psychopharmacologia, 1960, 1, 482–492.Google Scholar
  40. Globus, G., Phoebus, M. A., Humphries, J., Boyd, H., Gaffney, D., and. Gaffney, S. The effect of lorazepam on anxious insomniacs’ sleep as recorded in the home environment. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1974, 14, 192–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Gotestam, K. G., and Anderson, B. E. Self-administration of amphetamine analogues in rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1975, 3, 229–233.Google Scholar
  42. Gottschalk, L. A., Noble, E. P., Stolzoff, G. E., Bates, O. E., Cable, C. G., Uliana, R. L., Birch, H., and Fleming, E. W. Relationships of chlordiazepoxide blood levels to psychological and biochemical responses. In S. Garattini and E. Mussini (Eds.), The benzodiazepines, New York: Raven Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  43. Griffith, J. D., Nutt, J. G., and Jasinski, D. R. A comparison of fenfluramine and amphetamine in man. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 1975, 18, 563–570.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Grove, R. N., and Schuster, C. R. Suppression of cocaine self-administration by extinction and punishment. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1974, 2, 199–208.Google Scholar
  45. Haertzen, C. A., and Hooks, N. T. Changes in personality and subjective experience associated with the chronic administration and withdrawal of opiates. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 1969, 148, 606–614.Google Scholar
  46. Haynes, R. C., and Murad, F. Adrenocorticotropic hormone: Adrenocortical steroids and their synthetic analogs; Inhibitors of adrenocortical steroid biosynthesis. In A. G. Gilman, L. S. Goodman, and A. Gilman (Eds.), The pharmacological basis of therapeutics (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1980.Google Scholar
  47. Hill, H. E., Haertzen, C. A., Wolback, A. B., and Miner, E. J. The Addiction Research Center Inventory: Standardization of scales which evaluate subjective effects of morphine, amphetamine, pentobarbital, alcohol, LSD-25, parahexyl and chlorpromazine. Psychopharmacologia, 1963, 4, 167–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Hoffmeister, F. Negative reinforcing properties of some psychotropic drugs in drug-naive rhesus monkeys. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1975, 192, 468–477.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hoffmeister, F., and Goldberg, S. R. A comparison of chlorpromazine, imipramine, morphine and d-amphetamine self-administration in cocaine-dependent rhesus monkeys. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1973, 187, 8–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Hoffmeister, F., and Schlichting, U. U. Reinforcing properties of some opiates and opioids in rhesus monkeys with histories of cocaine and codeine self-administration. Psychopharmacologia, 1972, 23, 55–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Hoffmeister, F., and. Wuttke, W. Self-administration of acetylsalicylic acid and combinations with codeine and caffeine in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1973, 186, 266–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Hoffineister, F., and. Wuttke, W. Self-administration: Positive and negative reinforcing properties of morphine antagonists in rhesus monkeys. In M. C. Braude, L. S. Harris, E. L. May, J. P. Smith, and J. E. Villarreal (Eds.), Narcotic antagonists: Advances in biochemical psychopharmacologv. New York: Raven Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  53. Hoffmeister, F., and. Wuttke, W. Further studies on self-administration of antipyretic analgesics and combinations of antipyretic analgesics with codeine in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1975, 193, 870–875.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Isbell, H. Human pharmacology and addiction liability of normorphine. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1958, 122, 359–369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Jasinski, D. R. Studies on the subjective effects of narcotic antagonists. In W. Keup (Ed.), Drug abuse: Current concepts and research. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1972.Google Scholar
  56. Jasinski, D. R. Narcotic antagonists of low dependence liability—Theoretical and practical implications of recent studies. In L. Brills and E. Hainns (Eds.), The yearbook of drug abuse. New York: Behavioral Publications, 1973. (a)Google Scholar
  57. Jasinski, D. R. Assessment of the dependence liability of opiates and sedative hypnotics. In L. Goldberg Sr, F. Hoffmeister (Eds.), Psychic dependence (Bayer-Symposium IV). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1973. (b)Google Scholar
  58. Jasinski, D. R. Clinical evaluation of sedative-hypnotics for abuse potential. In T. Thompson and K. R. Unna (Eds.), Predicting dependence liability of stimulant and depressant drugs. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  59. Jasinski, D. R., and Nutt, J. G. Progress Report of the Assessment Program of the NIMH Addiction Research Center. Proceedings of the Committee on Problems of Drug Abuse, 1972.Google Scholar
  60. Jasinski, D. R., Martin, W. R., and Hoeldtke, R. Studies of the dependence-producing properties of GPA-1657, profadol and propiram in man. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 1971, 12, 613–649.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Jasinski, D. R., Nutt, J. G., and Griffith, J. D. Effects of diethylpropion and d-amphetamine after subcutaneous and oral administration. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 1974, 16, 645–652.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Jellinek, E. M. The disease concept of alcoholism. New Haven: Hillhouse Press, 1960. Jessor, R., and lessor, S. L. Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  63. Jones, H., and Jones, H. Sensual drugs. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  64. Kalant, H., Leblanc, A. E., and Gibbins, R. J. Tolerance to and dependence on some non-opiate psychotropic drugs. Pharmacology Review, 1971, 23, 135–191.Google Scholar
  65. Kales, A., Scharf, M. B., Kales, J. D., and Soldatos, C. R. Rebound insomnia: A potential hazard following withdrawal of certain benzodiazepine drugs. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1979, 241, 1692–1695.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Kales, A., Soldatos, C. R., Bixler, E. O., and Kales, J. D. Early morning insomnia with rapidly eliminated benzodiazepines. Science, 1983, 220, 95–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Kales, J. D. Benzodiazepine hypnotics: Carryover effectiveness, rebound insomnia, and performance effects. In S. I. Szara and J. P. Ludford (Eds.), Benzodiazepines: A review of research results 1980 INIDA Research Monograph No. 33, U.S. Public Health Services Publication No. 81–1052 ). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.Google Scholar
  68. Krank, M. D., Hinson, R. E., and. Siegel, S. Conditioned hyperalgesia is elicited by environmental signals of morphine. Behavioral and Neural Biology, 1981, 32, 147–148.Google Scholar
  69. Le Dain, G. Final report of the commission of inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs. Ottawa, Ontario: Information Canada (Catalogue No. H21–5370/21, 1973.Google Scholar
  70. Leith, N. J., and Barrett, R. J. Self-stimulation and amphetamine: Tolerance to d-and 1-isomers and cross tolerance to cocaine and methylphenidate. Psychopharmacology, 1981, 74, 23–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Lettieri, D. J., Sayers, M., and Pearson, H. W. Theories on drug abuse (NIDA Research Monograph No. 30, U.S. Public Health Services Publication No. 80–967). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.Google Scholar
  72. Majchrowicz, E. Reversal in central nervous system function during ethanol withdrawal in humans and experimental animals. Federation Proceedings, 1981, 40, 2065–2072.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Martin, W. R., Haertzen, C. A., and Hewett, B. B. Psychopathology and pathophysiology of narcotic addicts, alcoholics, and drug abusers. In M. A. Lipton, A. DiMascio, and K. F. Killam (Eds.), Psychopharmacology: A generation of progress. New York: Raven Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  74. Martin, W. R., Sloan, J. W., Sapira, J. D., andJasinski, D. R. Physiologic, subjective and behavioral effects of amphetamine, methamphetamine, ephedrine, phenmetrazine, and methylphenidate in man. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 1971, 12, 245–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. McClane, T. K., and Martin, W. R. Subjective and physiologic effects of morphine, pentobarbital and meprobamate. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 1976, 20, 192–198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. McCown, T. J., and, Barrett, R. J. The development of tolerance to the rewarding effects of self-administered S) +1- amphetamine, Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1980, 12, 137–141.Google Scholar
  77. McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., and Droppleman, L. F. Profile of mood states. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1971.Google Scholar
  78. Meisch, R. A., and Thompson, T. Ethanol as a reinforcer: Effects of fixed-ratio size and food deprivation. Psychopharmacologia, 1973, 28, 171–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Mello, N. K. Behavioral studies of alcoholism. In B. Kissin and H. Begleiter (Eds.), The biology of alcoholism (Vol. 2). Physiology and behavior. New York: Plenum Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  80. Miksic, S., and Lal, H. Tolerance to morphine-produced discriminative stimuli and analgesia. Psychopharmacology, 1977, 54, 217–221.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Narrol, H. G. Experimental application of reinforcement principles to the analysis and treatment of hospitalized alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1967, 28, 105–115.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. O’Donnell, J. S., Voss, H. L., Clayton, R. R., Slatin, G. T., and Room, R. G. W. Young men and drugs—A national survey (NIDA Research Monograph No. 5, U.S. Public Health Services Publication No. 76–311 ). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.Google Scholar
  83. Olds, J., and Milner, P. Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal area and other regions of rat brain. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 195, 47, 419–427.Google Scholar
  84. Omenn, G. S. Pharrnacogenetics: An overview and new approaches. Human Genetics, 1978, Supplement 1, 83–90.Google Scholar
  85. Omenn, G. S., and. Motulsky, A. G. Pharmacogenetics: Clinical and experimental studies in man. In B. F. Eleftheriou (Ed.), Psychopharmacogenetics. New York: Plenum Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  86. Petursson, H., and, Lader, M. H. Benzodiazepine dependence. British Journal of Addiction, 1981, 76, 133–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Pickens, R., and Harris, W. C. Self-administration of d-amphetamine by rats. Psychopharmacologia, 1968, 12, 158–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Pickens, R., and Thompson, T. Cocaine-reinforced behavior in rats: Effects of reinforcement magnitude and fixed-ratio size. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1968, 161, 122–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Pickens, R., and. Thompson, T. Cocaine-reinforced behavior in rats: Effects of reinforcement magnitude and fixed-ratio size. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1968, 161, 122–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Pickens, R., and Thompson, T. Characteristics of stimulant drug reinforcement. In T. Thompson and R. Pickens (Eds.), Stimulus properties of drugs. New York: Plenum, 1971. Pollard, G. T., and Howard, J. L. The Geller-Seifter conflict paradigm with incremental shock. Psychopharmacology, 1979, 62, 117–121.Google Scholar
  91. Pomerleau, O., Pertschuk, M., and Stinnett, J. A critical examination of some current assumptions in the treatment of alcohol. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1976, 37, 849–867.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Rachlin, H., and Green, L. Commitment, choice and selfcontrol. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1972, 17, 15–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Schachter, S. Recidivism and self-cure of smoking and obesity. American Psychologist, 1982, 37, 436–444.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Schaefer, G. J., and Holtzman, S. G. Free operant and autotitration brain self-stimulation procedures in the rat: A comparison of drug effects. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1979, 10, 127–135.Google Scholar
  95. Schaefer, G. J., and Michael, R. P. Acute effects of neuroleptics on brain self-stimulation thresholds in rats. Psychopharmacology, 1980, 67, 9–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Schaefer, J. M. Ethnic differences in response to alcohol. In R. Pickens and L. Heston (Eds.), Psychiatric factors in drug abuse. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1979.Google Scholar
  97. Schuster, C. R., and. Woods, J. H. The conditiond reinforcing effects of stimuli associated with morphine reinforcement. International Journal of Addiction, 1968, 3, 223–230.Google Scholar
  98. Schwartz, G. E. Behavioral medicine and systems theory: A new synthesis. National Forum, 1980, 4, 25–30.Google Scholar
  99. Seeger, T. F’., and Gardner, E. L. Enhancement of self-stimulation behavior in rats and monkeys after chronic neuroleptic treatment: Evidence for mesolimbic supersensitivity. Brain Research, 1979, 175, 49–57.Google Scholar
  100. Sepinwall, J., and Cook, L. Behavioral pharmacology of antianxiety drugs. In L. L. Iversen, S. D. Iversen, and S. S. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of psychopharmacology (Vol. 13 ). New York: Plenum Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  101. Shannon, H. E., and Holtzman, S. G. Evaluation of the discriminative effects of morphine in the rat. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1976, 198, 54–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Siegel, S. Evidence from rats that morphine tolerance is a learned response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1975, 89, 498–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Siegel, S., Hinson, R. E., Krank, M. D., and McCully, J. Heroin “overdose” death: Contribution of drug-associated environmental cues. Science, 1982, 216, 436–437.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Silverman, P. B., and Ho, B. T. Characterization of discriminative response control by psychomotor stimulants. In H. Lal (Ed.), Discriminative stimulus properties of drugs. New York: Plenum Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  105. Skinner, B. F. The behavior of organisms, An experimental analysis. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1938.Google Scholar
  106. Smith, R. C. Traffic in amphetamines. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 1969, 2, 20–24.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, S. G., and Davis, W. M. Punishment of amphetamine and morphine self-administration behavior. Psychological Record, 1974, 24, 432–435.Google Scholar
  108. Solomon, R. L. An opponent-process theory of motivation: IV. The affective dynamics of addiction. In J. D. Maser and M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Psychopathology: Experimental models. San Francisco: Freeman, 1977.Google Scholar
  109. Solomon, R. L. The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation: The cost of pleasure and the benefits of pain. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 691–712.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Solomon, R. L., and Corbit, J. D. An opponent-process theory of motivation: II. Cigarette addiction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81, 158–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Solomon, R. L., and Corbit, J. D. An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 119–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Stamatoyannopoulas, G., Chen, S. H., and Fukui, M. Liver alcohol dehydrogenase in Japanese: High population frequency of atypical form and its possible role in alcohol sensitivity. American Journal of Human Genetics, 1975, 27, 789–796.Google Scholar
  113. Stein, L. Self-stimulation of the brain and central stimulant action of amphetamine. Federation Proceedings, 1964, 23, 836–850.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Stein, L., and Ray, O. S. Brain stimulation reward “thresholds” self-determined in rats. Psychopharmacologia, 1960, 1, 251–256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Stretch, R., Gerber, G. J., and Wood, S. M. Factors affecting behavior maintained by response-contingent intravenous infusion of amphetamine in squirrel monkeys. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 1971, 49, 581–589.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Thompson, T., and Pickens, R. Drugs as reinforcers: Schedule considerations. In R. Gilbert Sr, J. D. Keehn (Eds.), Schedule effects: Drugs, drinking and aggression. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  117. Thompson, T., and Schuster, C. R. Morphine self-administration and food-reinforced and avoidance behaviors in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacologia, 1964, 5, 87–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Van Dyke, C., and Byck, R. Cocaine. Scientific American, 1982, 246 3, 128–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Vessell, E. S. Advances in pharmacogenetics. In A. G. Steinberg and A. G. Beam (Eds.), Progress in medical genetics. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1973.Google Scholar
  120. Von Voigtlander, P. F’., and Moore, K. E. Involvement of nigrostriatal neurons in the in vivo release of dopamine by amphetamine, amantadine and tyramine. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1973, 184, 542.Google Scholar
  121. Wang, R. P. A study of alcoholism in Chinatown. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1968, 14, 260–267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Watson, R., Hartmann, E., and Schildkraut, J. J. Amphetamine withdrawal: Affective state, sleep patterns, and MHPG excretion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1972, 129, 263–269.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Webster, J. S., Moeberg, C., and Rincon, G. National history of severe proximal coronary artery disease as documented by coronary cineangiography. American Journal of Cardiology, 1974, 33, 195–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Weeks, J. R. Experimental morphine addiction: Method for automatic intravenous injection in unrestrained rats. Science, 1962, 138, 143–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. Weiss, S. M. and. Schwartz, G. E. Behavioral medicine: The biobehavioral perspective. In R. Williams and. R. Sururt (Eds.), Proceedings of NATO Symposium on Behavioral Medicine. New York: Plenum Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  126. White, D. K., and. Barrett, R. J. Manuscript in preparation, 1985.Google Scholar
  127. Wikler, A. Recent progress in research on the neurophysiologie basis of morphine addiction. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1948, 105, 329–338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Wikler, A. A psychodynamic study of a patient during self-regulated readdiction to morphine. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1952, 260, 270–293.Google Scholar
  129. Wikler, A. Opioid dependence. New York: Plenum Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  130. Wilcox, P. R. C., Gillan, R., and Hare, E. H. Do psychiatric patients take their drugs? British Medical Journal, 1965, 2, 790.Google Scholar
  131. Wilson, M. C., Hitomi, M., and Schuster, C. R. Psychomotor stimulant self-administration as a function of dosage per injection in the rhesus monkey. Psychopharmacologia, 1971, 22, 271–281.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Wise, C. D., and Stein, L. Amphetamine facilitation of behavior by augmented release of norepinephrine from the medial forebrain bundle. In E. Costa and S. Garrattini (Eds.), Amphetamines and related compounds. New York: Raven Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  133. Wise, R. A., and Bozarth, M. A. Brain substrates for reinforcement and drug self-administration. Progress in Neuro-Psycho pharmacology, 1981, 5, 467–474.Google Scholar
  134. Wise, R. A., and Bozarth, M. A. Action of drugs of abuse on brain reward systems: An update with specific attention to opiates. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 1982, 17, 29–243.Google Scholar
  135. Woods, J. H. Narcotic reinforced responding—A rapid screening procedure. Proceedings of the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, 1977, 420–437.Google Scholar
  136. Woods, J. H., and Tessel, R. E. Fenfluramine: Amphetamine congener that fails to maintain drug-taking behavior in the rhesus monkey. Science, 1974, 185, 1067–1069.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. Yanagita, T., Takahashi, S., and Oinuma, N. Drug dependence liability of tricyclic antidepressants evaluated in monkeys. Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1972, 3, 289–294.Google Scholar
  138. Yokel, R. A., and Pickens, R. Self-administration of optical isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine by rats. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 1973, 187, 27–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Young, A. M., Herling, S., and, Woods, J. H. History of drug exposure as a determinant of drug self-administration. In T. Thompson and G. E. Johanson (Eds.), Behavioral pharmacology of human drug dependence (NIDA Research Monograph No. 37, U.S. Public Health Services Publication No. 81–1137). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.Google Scholar
  140. Zinberg, N. E., Harding, W. M., and Apsler, R. What is abuse? Journal of Drug Issues, 1978, 8, 9–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Barrett
    • 1
  1. 1.Veterans Administration Medical Center and Departments of Psychology and PharmacologyVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations