Conclusions: Consilience as the Future of Addiction Psychopharmacology

Abstract

The goal of this volume was to bring together the many diverse methodologies and technologies that are used to study addictive behavior. The assembled chapters provide a range of perspectives on addiction, from top-down approaches that frame addictive disorders across the lifespan to bottom-up approaches that focus on the micro-determinants or neurobiological substrates of addiction. The single theme that is common across them all is a focus on rigorous experimental methodology and empiricism. Recognizing that addictive behavior is complex and heterogeneous, a full understanding of the causes, consequences, and best interventions for addiction requires objective methods and thoughtful synthesis of empirical data.Importantly, studies of addiction usually involve more than a single method, and the methods selected complement and enhance one another. Until recently, addiction researchers have operated within disciplinary "silos," which can lead to myopia for understanding the behavior. Now, it is recognized that the methods must be integrated methods across domains, and the benefits to the field will be exponential. For example, the cognitive neuroscience paradigms could complement standard baseline assessment of individual differences in longitudinal investigations. Or, elements of personality, executive functioning, or impulsivity could be further leveraged to better understand and investigate the role of craving or negative affect in drug taking. Greater transdisciplinary consilience, a fuller integration of perspectives and methods, is the clear direction forward for the future of addiction research.The need for greater consilience in addiction research reflects the emphasis on translational research in behavioral and biomedical research in general (National Advisory

Effects of ostracism and sex on alcohol consumption in a clinical laboratory setting.

“…Furthermore, the dependent variable of alcohol consumption was assessed via the amount of beer consumed in a mock taste-test task, and supported by BrAC assessment. This approach has a long history of use in alcohol studies as a methodology that can examine voluntary drinking while reducing demand effects (MacKillop & Murphy, 2013; Marlatt, Demming, & Reid, 1973; Thomas et al, 2011). Our data show that AUDIT-C scores were correlated with beer drinking in the taste-test task, indicating that drinking in the laboratory was related to drinking outside the laboratory.…”

“…The taste rating task is a common way to assess voluntary alcohol consumption under controlled conditions, while reducing demand and observation effects (MacKillop & Murphy, 2013). During this task, participants were presented with two 12-oz mugs of light beer (710 ml), and accompanied by a form with various taste descriptors (e.g., oaky, tart).…”

Excluded, then inebriated: A preliminary investigation into the role of ostracism on alcohol consumption

“…The taste-rating task is a common way to assess voluntary alcohol consumption under controlled conditions while reducing demand and observation effects ( Mackillop and Murphy, 2013 ) and is significantly associated with measures of typical consumption ( Jones et al, 2016 ). Participants were presented with two pitchers of light beer, which were poured into two 12-oz mugs (710 ml total).…”

Hazardous drinking and alcohol use disorders

“…This is mitigated slightly with the development of novel assays of clinical features 112,113 but remains an issue. Similarly, the translational validity of human laboratory paradigms is also imperfect 354,355 . Moreover, although there is an extensive neuroimaging knowledge base on AUDs and the brain, most studies are cross-sectional, precluding inferences about whether the observed differences are causes and/ or consequences of AUD.…”