L7 - Pathological gambling Flashcards

Question

What are the reinforcement schedules?

Answer 1

- Skinner: “People gamble because of the schedule of reinforcement that follows” – **Variable / Random Ratio schedules** - This gives rise to the ‘gambler’s fallacy’ (a human design feature so talk about it later)

Answer 2

1. **Fixed ratio**: for every number of responses, you will get a reward and this ratio is predictable 2. **Fixed interval**: the reward is not based on number of responses but on time - so we see way less number of responses because the animal learns that many more responses doesn't result in many more rewards so why work so hard if I only get reinforcement every couple of minutes for example so then there is rapid responding near the time of reinforcement 3. **Variable interval**: the time between the reward is variable so this results in variable responding but not as extreme as with variable ratio 4. ***Variable ratio***: the reward is based on the number of responses made but on it's variable so you don't know how many responses you need before you get a reward so you have to work for it the hardest because this leads to highest number of responses with the lowest number of rewards

Answer 3

The shorter the time between bet and outcome, the more ‘addictive’ - Regulated: in the Netherlands average must be at least 4 sec - in USA there is no such rule - in Germany, the number is higher - This is why lottery-related problems are virtually nonexistent Higher addiction potential with higher stakes - Regulated: maximum loss on slot machines is 40 euro / hour

Answer 4

- Actually, “near win” - It's a reinforcement in the absence of win - Some research shows that it produces even higher psychophysological responses than actual wins * Enhances motivation to gamble

Answer 5

- The net effect of a near-win is the same as a full loss (you don't win anything) but it feels like and the brain computes it as an actual win - picture 5

Answer 6

- Casinos are designed in a certain way which feels nice - Audiovisual stimuli: sounds, lights, animations - These stimuli are related to winning or the anticipation of winning which serve to increase arousal and lead to feeling of reinforcement

Answer 7

* You bet 30 and win 8, so technically you lost 22 but they only show you in big celebratory letters that you **won 8!** * Conditioned reinforcers contingent on betting to mask losses * Overestimate win frequencies - it feels to people like they won money, while in reality they actually lost them

Answer 8

- All of the machine features are not enough since lot of people go to the casino and don't get addicted to gambling - So what makes some people addicted and not others? - **Human design features** = what is different in people who become addicted to those who do not

Answer 9

1. Executive functions 2. Cognitive distortions 3. Incentive salience/cue reactivity 4. General reward processing 5. Gambling-specific reward processing

Answer 10

- Response inhibition, as measured with the Stop-Signal task, was impaired (as reflected in slower Stop-Signal RT’s - find it hard to inhibit response when asked to in a task, e.g. stop pushing a button when you see a number 5) - Impaired response inhibition was predictive of relapse at 1-year follow-up - the higher impaired response inhibition, the higher the chance of relapse - During the task, there is activity in PFC in healthy controls but not in problem gamblers - there is dysfunction in the control regions, PFC, that makes it more difficult to inhibit when they need to

Answer 11

- **Iowa Gambling Task**: 4 decks and some are high risk (you can ear more but also lose more) and others are more safe (you earn less in one go but more in the long-run) - Pathological gambling appears to be characterized by suboptimal decision making on the Iowa Gambling Task - Delay discounting task - in gamblers, the subjective value of a reward decreases more rapidly as a function of time (*steeper delay discounting curve*), meaning they are more impulsive (picture 6)

Answer 12

- Total: ~1000 gamblers vs ~1300 healthy controls * **Cognitive flexibility** is reduced in gamblers (e.g. reversal learning, Wisconsin Card Sorting Task) * **Stroop task**: pathological gamblers show greater interference on incongruent trials of the Stroop task than controls * However, research into impaired goal-directed/habitual control in gambling disorder is lacking - this was 7 years ago so there is now more research but still very limited * Need for more systematic research, that also takes into account co-morbidities (e.g., substance use, ADHD)

Answer 13

* the belief that a certain random event is less or more likely to happen based on the outcome of previous of events (predicting that the roulette spin will land on black after 4 successive spins landing on red) * Past events do not change the probability of a certain outcome * Higher gambling distortions → more gambler’s fallacy decisions (in student sample) * At-risk gamblers prefer slot machines that deliver more “clumpy” outcomes (more repetition of the same outcome)

Answer 14

- Irrelevant features of a game that create a sense that one is developing some kind of **control or skill** over an outcome that is in fact determined by chance - Examples: choosing a lottery number, throwing dice - Gambling disordered patients are more vulnerable to the illusion of control

Answer 15

- Showing problem gamblers and controls a game-related picture vs a picture of someone reading a book - Gamblers show **increased** activation of the mesolimbic reward system during cue reactivity (game-related picture) which is related to incentive salience

Answer 16

- Give a task, where people can win money and you look at the phase before the outcome so they are anticipating a reward - Gamblers show **decreased** activation of the mesolimbic reward system during reward anticipation - This could be counterintuitive since you would expect that gamblers will be more sensitive to this but research shows the opposite - In line with the *reward deficiency syndrome hypothesis* which suggests that people who are less sensitive to reward in general are more likely to develop addiction (i.e. risk factor) - especially with money

Answer 17

- Researchers wanted to see whether the decreased activity during reward anticipation is only specific to monetary rewards or to other types of rewards as well - While in a scanner, they show cues: errotic pictures or monetary-related pictures and measure the brain activity - Results: gamblers show higher activity to monetary cues than the errotic cue but in controls the activation is the same for both cues - This difference in activation between these two cues was also positively correlated with severity of gambling - This shows general deficiency in **reward processing**

Answer 18

- Gambling disorder has the advantage that you can research the addiction while a person is in a scanner (for ethical reasons you can't do this with alcohol or drugs) - you can look at winning, near-misses, anticipation Studies: 1. winning money in a simple card guessing task showed decreased brain activation of the mesolimbic reward system in gamblers than in controls, indicating **blunted processing** even when gamblers win money 2. Near misses: gamblers are more responsive to these indicated by the increased NAcc activity in gamblers compared to controls (where there was almost no activation) 3. Reward anticipation during a gambling task: gamblers show **increased** activation of the mesolimbic reward system during the anticipation of a gambling outcome, when they play a game of chance but not with a general monetary rewards

Answer 19

- outcomes that are perceived as having been close to a win, but that are in fact objective losses - Most gambling games deliver purposeful ‘near misses’. Games that deliver moderate rates of near misses are played longer than machines that deliver none and near misses are perceived as more aversive than complete misses, but they do increase the desire to continue the game - Near misses may fuel the illusion of control in games where outcomes are completely random. - Near misses & the brain: Despite objectively being a loss, near misses have been shown to increase the neural signal in brain reward circuitry, compared to full misses - Especially the anterior insula showed overlapping activity to wins and near misses

Answer 20

Participants with lesions to the insula (G1), the ventromedial PFC (G2), the amygdala (G3), or no-lesions (controls) performed 2 different gambling tasks. Results showed that: * G2, G3 & controls: enhanced motivation to play following near misses and gambler’s fallacy * Insula lesions: no enhanced motivation following near misses and no gambler’s fallacy The insula seems to be causally involved in cognitive distortions in gambling addiction

Answer 21

The combination of the machine design features and the human design features: * Illusion of control / superstition * Gambler’s fallacy * Impaired executive function / PFC * Cue reactivity * Distorted reward processing

Answer 22

- Initally, there is **habit formation**, which is a process of developing a habit engrained in stimulus response associations, acquired through reinforcement learning - machine feature - Then, it turns to **problem gambling** which is a gambling behaviour that is associated with some level of negative consequences and possible difficulties of self-control - And finally, **addiction and gambling disorder**, which is persistent and recurrent problematic gambling leading to clinically significant impairment or distress (DSM-5) often with alterations in brain processes involved in reward, motivation, memory and goal-driven action (ASAM) - the combination of the human and machine features which explains why only certain people develop GD - Picture 7

Answer 23

1. **Conditioned** ↪ Little psychopathology ↪ Driven by social influences ↪ Cognitive distortions 2. **Emotional vulnerability** ↪ Depressive/anxiety ↪ Low impulsive ↪ Regulate dysphoric feelings 3. **Antisocial & impulsive** ↪ High impulsive ↪ Driven by sensation seeking ↪ Enhance positive feelings The type of the machine and what effect the different machine features will have also depend on which subtype the person is

Answer 24

* Associative learning processes play a central role in gambling and gambling disorder * Games of chance are designed such that win-chances are overestimated * Gamblers show differences in the way they anticipate to, discount and perceive (monetary) rewards * Gamblers physiological and brain responses to gambling and gambling related cues compared to healthy control individuals

Answer 25

GD in DSM because of: 1. Symptoms 2. Comorbidities 3. Genetic vulnerabilities 4. Effective treatments (CBT, nalmephene) 5. Similar brain function distortions and neurocognitive profiles What DSM says: - Other addictions not in DSM because more research needs to be done - Under consideration: Internet gaming disorder (in 2018 included in ICD) and Internet disorder - Hard no: eating/food, sex, exercise, shopping, tanning ''addictions'' (doesn't mean that these cannot be problematic behaviours, rather that they shouldn't be called addictions) - Reasons: data is inconclusive + research using consistent terminology and methology is needed

Answer 26

- “WHO under enormous pressure, especially from Asian countries” - In Asia: ↪ Higher prevalence (10-15% vs 1-10% in Europe) ↪ More stigma about addiction in Asian countries → may cause overestimation of prevalence? ↪ Risk of overpathologizing behavior - “Games industry bodies (...) have expressed doubts about the classification.” - Health care professionals and scientist generally positive

Answer 27

- industry (e.g. game developers) wants money - health care wants to treat patients but also money in the case of private treatment (especially the US) - Politics: insurance? e.g. in the Netherlands people who are diagnosed can get treatment covered by insurance but that's not the case for behaviours that are currently not listed as disorders - Society: public opinion & stigma

Answer 28

- There is lot of discussion whether behavioural addictions should be considered disorders - Paper published called *Behavioural addictions as mental disorders: to be or not to be?* where it says: ''As society evolves, the expression of mental disorders changes. Is technology creating new disorders or addictions?” - Balance must be achieved between too restrictive a system that hinders generalizability and too open system, in which marked heterogeneity obscures actual knowledge - So the question is where should we draw the line with behavioural addictions - there is no clear answer

Answer 29

* Assessment methods * Prevalence rates * Psychiatric comorbidities * Demographic and biological risk factors * Promising treatment approaches

Answer 30

- The article discusses gambling disorder and how can behaviour become addictive in absence of exogenous drug stimulation - Similarities between GD and SUD well documented but gambling is unlikely to have actively damaging effects on brain (cognitive biases, such as illusion of control and gambler's fallacy, play significant role) - Looks at other behaviours that could be considered addictions: obesity, compulsive shopping, and internet gaming

Answer 31

- It is well established that chronic drug exposure is associated with neurotoxic effects on the brain - These effects include shrinkage across multiple brain regions - As gambling is unlikely to exert actively damaging effects on the brain, looking into gambling disorder might provide a means of studying the addictive process in the brain that is not disrupted by drug effects - The ‘chicken and egg problem’ in addiction can be investigated in gambling disorder: are identified vulnerability factors the cause of addiction or the result of neurotoxic effects

Answer 32

- Endophenotype approach in support (users vs first-degree relatives): shared elevation of impulsivity, trait of sensation seeking only present in affected (addicted) probands - **Impulsivity** has been identified as a shared vulnerability factor ↪ impulsivity = a trait that is characterized by unplanned responding and hasty decision-making that may be unduly risky or neglecting of (long-term) negative consequences - An alcohol-dependent group showed additional deficits in response inhibition and spatial working memory - may therefore reflect alcohol-induced changes in the lateral PFC - Brain structures in gambling disorder: ↪ Striatum and PFC, increased grey matter volumes ↪ Changes in white matter tracts and resting-state connectivity

Answer 33

- Reward processing and decision making tasks - Consistent abnormalities in gambling disorder in striatum, medial PFC, amygdala, insula but there is mixed evidence: ↪ Hypoactivity (reward deficiency) ↪ Hyperactivity (sensitization/incentive salience) - Addictions may be associated with imbalance in different reward types ↪ E.g. Males with gambling disorder more motivated by financial (stronger response in orbitofrontal cortex) than erotic (hypoactivity in ventral striatum) rewards - Gamblers make more impulsive choices (smaller-sooner rewards) in presence of high-craving cues (pictures of casinos...)

Answer 34

- Based on drug addicts' brains, they expect to see reduced striatal dopamine D2 receptor binding in gamblers - Four independent PET studies failed to detect this - But there were individual differences as a function of impulsivity (higher density was associated with less impulsivity) - Inference: effects described in drug addiction more reflective of drug-induced changes, not preexisting vulnerabilities - Another PET study looked at dopamine *release* in gambling disorder - It showed increased dopamine release in the dorsal striatum for patients with gambling disorder, while previous studies in drug-addicts had found a reduced release of dopamine - Inference: Clear perturbations in dopamine transmission, but profiles in gambling disorder diverge from established picture in drug addiction - Conclusion: While dopamine is also implicated in gambling disorder, the pathophysiology appears different from substance addiction. Further, impulsivity seems to be a vulnerability marker for addiction.

Answer 35

- As we know, drugs of abuse hijack the dopamine system: they are more potent (powerful) than natural rewards at activating the reward system - However, behavioral addictions can only rely on natural or conditioned reinforcement mechanisms - Non-drug behaviors likely require **additional ingredients** to transition into addicted states - Evidence has found that rats getting a lever choice between cocaine and sucrose (sugar) reliably opted for the latter, even when chronically using cocaine - Therefore, even when drugs are more potent, animals may nevertheless prefer natural rewards

Answer 36

- a model that emphasizes that drug-induced stimulation of dopamine transmission is exogenous (external cause) - That is, for natural rewards there is no more firing to the US over the course of Pavlovian learning (because there is no prediction error): they only fire in response to the CS - In contrast, the dopamine response does not diminish for drug rewards (the drug is the US): by stimulating the dopamine system, drugs of abuse continually elicit a US response next to a CS response, resulting in hyper-learning of drug-associated cues (picture 1 again)

Answer 37

- Comparable Pavlovian processes as for drug-seeking seem to occur in gambling behavior - fMRI results show that patients with gambling disorder show greater brain activity when anticipating gambling rewards (in response to the CS; spinning of the wheels) but reduced activity in response to actual wins - Just as for SUDs, patients with gambling disorder show increased responding to addiction-related cues (CSs), however, they do show reduced responding to actual rewards (US)

Answer 38

1. **Big win hypothesis**: many people with gambling disorder retrospectively describe receiving major payouts in the first few times that they ever gambled, which constitute profound positive prediction errors that will activate the neural systems of reinforcement learning 2. **Asymmetry in temporal-difference learning**: financial gains (positive prediction error) promote learning acquisition, while financial losses (negative prediction errors) do not trigger unlearning but rather promote *hindsight bias* (state splitting) - Hindsight bias = explaining away of losses in a manner that does not ruin the player’s belief in his/her ability to win

Answer 39

- **Decision uncertainty** (learning from prediction error only in uncertain environments) - Potential for bivalent outcomes (gains and losses)

Answer 40

- The element of chance in gambling raises some unique problems for cognition: most natural environments are probabilistic, while gambling games are mostly entirely random - Gambling-related cognitive distortions = systematic errors in processing under conditions of chance 1) **Illusion of control** 2) **Gambler's fallacy** 3) Near miss effect - There is more and more evidence that those with gambling disorder may be more prone to these distortions than the general population

Answer 41

- Gambling disorder is currently the only behavioral addiction in the DSM-V - However, other conditions have been considered for further research: 1) Obesity & binge eating 2) Compulsive shopping 3) Internet gambling disorder - But it's a slippery slope! - A common concern with the concept of behavioral addiction is how to avoid everyday passions from being gradually pathologized as addictions - Decisions for future behavioral addictions should definitely be based on neural and behavioral analyses

Answer 42

- Drug self-administration experiments in animals show comparable phenomena for food rewards - Reduced D2-receptor density was found in nondrug users with high body mass index (BMI) and fMRI studies show similar profiles to studies in drug addiction and gambling disorder ↪ obese group heightened somatosensory response to anticipation of food intake and blunting of caudate response to actual consumption - Addiction lens possibly best suited to subgroup with binge eating behaviours - Further, there is a **persistent bias** towards an option of immediate gratification with long-term negative consequences (body shape, physical health) - In contrast, binge-eating does not evidently involve prediction-error signaling distortions or deficits in chance processing as in gambling disorders.

Answer 43

- Major links to neurobiology of drug addiction based on research into Parkinson’s disease (can appear alongside gambling disorder and hypersexuality) ↪ Occasional side effects of dopamine-agonist medications: reward-driven, impulsive behaviours - Very little research available outside of context of Parkinson’s disease - Decision making: immediate gratification > long-term negative consequences - Unclear whether parallel exist in processing of choice uncertainty and psychological distortions

Answer 44

- “most likely candidate” - Established negative academic and social consequences - Lack of consensus in assessment hampers research - Cognitive and neurobiological data on internet gaming 1) Striatal dopamine release when playing video game 2) Reductions in striatal D2 binding in small study in men treated for internet addiction 3) Evidence for cue reactivity (screenshots drive changes in medial PFC) 4) Associated with trait impulsivity 5) Associated with substantial physiological arousal (interoceptive property) - Field too premature to allow strong conclusions! (fruitful line of inquiry)

Answer 45

- Bivalent outcomes - Work for gains and avoid losses - Game environment uncertain - Unpredictable variable-ratio schedule of reinforcement - Notable difference: skill dimension, where performance improves with practice (unlike purely luck based) ↪ Games get progressively harder with time, so rewards stay essentially unpredictable

Answer 46

- DSM-5, only SUD-criterion “craving” not present as criterion for GD (large overlap) - however many studies showing higher self-reported craving, elevated responses in reward circuitry in disordered gamblers Many unresolved issues: - What physiological and psychological aspects are relevant - Is urge related to: desire to engage in gambling or sensation of winning - Emotional character of craving: Craving for positive emotional effects or Escape from negative feelings - Craving for gambling unique as urge to perceive experience of excitement when gambling - Which stimuli elicit craving?

Answer 47

- Both explained via a biopsychosocial model: biological vulnerability, psychological traits (e.g., impulsivity), and social context - Social etiology of GD (biopsychosocial model) 1) Presence of games of chance 2) Embeddedness of gambling 3) Early wins in gambling

Answer 48

- GD: Three-Pathway Model 1) Behaviorally conditioned: No major vulnerabilities, driven by environment (availability and accessibility of gambling + early engagement in gambling) 2) Emotionally vulnerable: Anxiety, depression, high sensation-seeking 3) Antisocial-impulsivist: ADHD, antisocial traits, impulsivity + substance use - In GD, cognitive misperceptions (e.g., illusion of control) are unique and central - SUD models emphasize neuroadaptation and pharmacodynamics not relevant to GD

Answer 49

1. Self-reported impulsivity elevated in both - show trait impulsivity ↪ strong predictor of onset and severity 2. Response inhibition: ↪ GD - Mixed evidence; some show deficits, especially with comorbid ADHD ↪ SUD - more consistent deficits (esp. in cocaine, heroin, alcohol) ↪ Both show ACC, DLPFC hypoactivation in fMRI/ERP studies 3. Steep delay discounting for both ↪ GD - Context increases impulsivity in GD (e.g., gambling cues) ↪ SUD - more consistent across substances 4. Decision-making ↪ GD - Poorer on tasks like Iowa Gambling Task, esp. in non-strategic gamblers (Strategic gamblers show more intact decision-making in GD) ↪ SUD - Impaired across drugs (alcohol, cannabis, heroin, etc.)

Answer 50

Subjective craving - GD: Not a DSM-5 criterion but commonly reported ↪ Scales (Gambling Urge Scale) exist, though not well validated - SUD: Official DSM-5 criterion; widely studied Cue reactivity - GD: Involves limbic structures (e.g., amygdala, ventral striatum), especially in high-craving states - SUD: Similar circuits activated in response to drug cues

Answer 51

- Attentional bias to gambling/substance cues: present in both - GD: shown in Stroop, dot-probe - SUD: Stroop and visual probe tasks show robust attentional bias - Both are modulated by state - active gambler/user or abstinent ↪ higher bias when active

Answer 52

1) **Reward outcome** ↪ GD: Often shows blunted striatal response; especially to actual wins/losses ↪ SUD: Enhanced striatal response to substance-related rewards 2) **Reward anticipation** ↪ GD: ↑ Activation in gambling-related contexts (e.g., high-risk bets, monetary anticipation) ↪ SUD: ↑ Activation regardless of context (e.g., in drug-related anticipation tasks) 3) **Context sensitivity** ↪ GD: Strong effect in GD: striatal-limbic system is more reactive in gambling settings ↪ SUD: Less context-sensitive in SUDs

Answer 53

1) Cognitive Misperceptions - **Illusion of control**: Belief that skill or effort can influence chance outcomes - **Selective memory**: Emphasis on wins, downplaying losses - **Overconfidence**: In betting and even unrelated tasks 2) Near Misses - Activate reward circuitry (e.g., striatum) similar to wins - Increase urge to continue gambling despite being losses - Trigger physiological arousal (e.g., skin conductance) 3) Uncertainty and Risk in Outcome - GD: Gambling inherently involves uncertain outcomes (risk and suspense) - SUDs: Drug effects are more predictable

Answer 54

- CBT is effective for both - Shared targets: impulsivity, craving, attentional bias, cognitive distortions - Pharmacological overlap: SSRIs, opioid antagonists - Neuromodulation (rTMS/tDCS) and cognitive training (e.g., working memory training, attentional bias modification) show promise in both

Answer 55

- Cognitive restructuring for GD targets gambling-specific distortions - Interventions for SUDs often need to manage withdrawal and detoxification—not applicable in GD - Neuromodulation research in GD is more limited

Answer 56

No clear consensus has yet emerged on the validity of the concept of ‘food addiction’. Some have argued that the concept is unsupported, while others have argued that food and drug addiction share similar features and that it is a legitimate clinical entity distinct from other patterns of disordered eating.

Answer 57

- While the term ‘food addiction’ might bring a means of communicating distress and helplessness, the evidence to speak of ‘food addiction’ as similar to substance-addictions is lacking - Identified two aspects: 1 central features, 2 pharmacological effects

Answer 58

- Some claim that there is a resemblance between overconsumption of food and substance use - Namely: cravings, loss of control, excessive consumption, tolerance, withdrawal, and distress/dysfunction - However, the central features of substance addiction do not plausibly translate to food consumption - Most notably, tolerance and withdrawal are not clearly defined and might not be validly and reliably measured in possible food addiction

Answer 59

Several studies show that controlled manipulation of high-fat and/or high-sugar food availability provokes addiction-like patterns in rats (reduced dopamine receptor function); however, there are several criticisms on these findings: * **Translation to humans**: the results have not been translated to humans yet and it remains to be questioned if this will ever happen in human environments that are often characterized by constant and plentiful availability rather than controlled constraint. * **Brain changes**: there is no convincing demonstrations that actual neurobiological changes indeed underly food addiction behaviors ↪ An early finding of reduced D2-receptor density in severely obese people was not replicated * **Addictive substance**: the substance that is supposed to have a direct effect on the brain remains undiscovered for possible food addiction

Answer 60

- Importantly, food addiction is considered distinct from obesity: lean individuals can also suffer from it - However, negative consequences of failed food control are most evident in overweight individuals - Thus, the arguments below are framed in the context of overweight and obesity

Answer 61

- SUDs aren't defined by any shared physiological abnormality that can be objectively measured and used as a diagnostic criterium as can be done in other illnesses (elevated blood glucose in diabetes) - Rather, SUDs are defined by the manifestation of behavioral abnormalities that negatively impact a patient’s life: 1) **Deprivation**: feelings of deprivation when the substance is withheld 2) **Relapse**: a propensity to relapse during periods of abstinence 3) **Compulsivity**: consumption persist despite awareness of negative health, social, financial, or other consequences - Overweight individuals who are unable to exert control over their food consumption, despite awareness of the negative consequences thus demonstrate the same core features as those with SUDs

Answer 62

- Multiple fMRI studies show that energy-dense, palatable (appetizing) food can alter activity in many of the same brain structures affected by drugs of abuse - Animal research provides causal evidence that both drugs of abuse and palatable food influence similar brain circuits, especially the mesolimbic dopamine system - Despite these similarities, it is unreasonable to assume that a specific addiction-relevant brain activity pattern can confirm or deny the existence of food addiction - No such definitive brain activity pattern exists even for diagnosing drug addiction

Answer 63

- Opponents of ‘food addiction’ often use the argument that it is not clear which ingredient in food would be responsible for an addictive effect - However, it can be argued that it is not necessarily a single nutrient that is responsible for maladaptive eating - Rather the combinations of them in palatable high-calorie foods that do not occur naturally - Study showed that blended food items high in both fat and carbohydrate were more valued than palatable food items high in only 1 of those

Answer 64

- Kenny views addiction as a group of related syndromes with overlapping but distinct brain and behavioral abnormalities - Core features of addiction can differ significantly between substances (e.g., cocaine vs. tobacco) - He acknowledges that some individuals clearly meet criteria similar to addiction in their relationship with food: ↪ Struggling to control consumption despite negative consequences ↪ Experiencing deprivation ↪ Being vulnerable to relapse - Although he admits the concept of "food addiction" is vague, he sees value in using knowledge of how drugs affect motivation circuits to better understand overeating ↪ Do not assume that overeating equals addiction—use addiction research to sharpen obesity research questions ↪ Explore both similarities and differences between food and drugs in terms of use patterns

L7 - Pathological gambling Flashcards

(89 cards)