|Titre :||Common liability to addiction and "gateway hypothesis": Theoretical, empirical and evolutionary perspective (2012)|
|Auteurs :||M. M. VANYUKOV ; R. E. TARTER ; G. P. KIRILLOVA ; L. KIRISCI ; M. D. REYNOLDS ; M. J. KREEK ; K. P. CONWAY ; B. S. MAHER ; W. G. IACONO ; L. J. BIERUT ; M. C. NEALE ; D. B. CLARK ; T. A. RIDENOUR|
|Type de document :||Article : Périodique|
|Dans :||Drug and Alcohol Dependence (Vol.123, Suppl.1, June 2012)|
|Article en page(s) :||S3-S17|
|Discipline :||PSY (Psychopathologie / Psychopathology)|
Thésaurus TOXIBASEDEPENDANCE ; THEORIE ; THEORIE DE L'ESCALADE ; GENETIQUE ; EVOLUTION ; CONCEPT ; ADDICTION
Background: Two competing concepts address the development of involvement with psychoactive substances: the "gateway hypothesis" (GH) and common liability to addiction (CLA).
Method: The literature on theoretical foundations and empirical findings related to both concepts is reviewed.
Results: The data suggest that drug use initiation sequencing, the core GH element, is variable and opportunistic rather than uniform and developmentally deterministic. The association between risks for use of different substances, if any, can be more readily explained by common underpinnings than by specific staging. In contrast, the CLA concept is grounded in genetic theory and supported by data identifying common sources of variation in the risk for specific addictions. This commonality has identifiable neurobiological substrate and plausible evolutionary explanations.
Conclusions: Whereas the "gateway" hypothesis does not specify mechanistic connections between "stages", and does not extend to the risks for addictions, the concept of common liability to addictions incorporates sequencing of drug use initiation as well as extends to related addictions and their severity, provides a parsimonious explanation of substance use and addiction co-occurrence, and establishes a theoretical and empirical foundation to research in etiology, quantitative risk and severity measurement, as well as targeted non-drug-specific prevention and early intervention.
|Note de contenu :||
2. Gateway hypothesis
3. Common liability to addiction
3.1. Common addiction liability as a trait
3.2. Mechanisms of variation in CLA
3.2.1. Empirical support for the common addiction liability concept
3.2.2. Ontogenesis of the liability phenotype
3.3. Sources of common variance
3.4. Evolutionary roots of addiction
3.4.1. Rationale for evolutionary approach
3.4.2. Common metric system
3.4.3. The amplitude of affective states (AAS) hypothesis
3.4.4. Drug abuse and (anti)social behavior
|Domaine :||Plusieurs produits / Several products|
|Sous-type de document :||Revue de la littérature / Literature review|
|Affiliation :||Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA|