Cited by 50Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesGambling Behavior and TreatmentsOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction

Open access
Lebowitz, Matthew S, Appelbaum, Paul S·2017·International Journal of Social Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Addictions are highly stigmatized and increasingly construed as biomedical diseases caused by genes, partly to reduce stigma by deflecting blame. However, genetic explanations may have negative effects, which have been understudied in the context of addiction. How the effects of genetic explanations might differ for substance addictions versus behavioral addictions is also unknown. Aims: This study examined the impact of genetic explanations for addiction on measures of treatment expectancies, blame, and perceived agency and self-control, as well as whether these varied depending on whether the addiction was to a substance or a behavior. Methods: Participants read about a person (‘Charlie’) with either alcohol use disorder or gambling disorder, receiving either a genetic or nongenetic explanation of Charlie’s problem. They rated how much they blamed Charlie for his disorder, his likelihood of benefitting from medication or psychotherapy, and how much agency and self-control they ascribed to him. Results: Compared to the nongenetic explanation, the genetic explanation reduced blame and increased confidence in the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy. However, it also decreased the expected effectiveness of psychotherapy and reduced ascriptions of agency and self-control. Conclusion: Genetic explanations for addiction appear to be a ‘double-edged sword’, with beneficial effects that come at a cost.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0020764017737573

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The brain-disease model can reduce blame but may also decrease hope for recovery and increase perceptions of dangerousness.

    “Other studies caution that while the brain-disease model can reduce blame, it may also decrease hope for recovery and increase perceptions of dangerousness.”

    From Beyond Stigma–Integrating Neurobiology, Genetics, and Awareness Integration Theory in Addiction Recovery (2026) · cites this paper as [86]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports that genetic explanations of addiction reduced blame, but also lowered perceived agency to overcome addiction and confidence in psychotherapy—findings related to hope for recovery. The study tested genetic explanations rather than the brain-disease model broadly, and the passages do not support the claim about increased perceptions of dangerousness. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. McGuire P 2016 Jackson Lab will study whether genetic traits play role in addiction Portland Press Herald Retrieved from http://www.pressherald.com/2016/08/09/jackson-laboratory-receives-11-7-million-nih-grant-to-study-addiction/
  2. Office of the Surgeon General 2016 Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health Retrieved from http://addiction.surgeongeneral.gov/ 28252892

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lebowitz, M. S., & Appelbaum, P. S.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Lebowitz, Matthew S
Venue
International Journal of Social Psychiatry
Published
2017-10-23
Volume
63
Issue
8
Pages
717-723
ISSN
  • 0020-7640 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2854
OpenAlex
W2765795123
Cited by
50
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Human Genome Research Institute (P50HG007257, RM1HG007257)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
addiction stigma, blame attribution, perceived agency, self-control, treatment expectancy, pharmacotherapy effectiveness, psychotherapy effectiveness, substance use disorders, gambling addiction, behavioral addiction, genetic determinism
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotherapy, Behavior, Addictive, Substance-Related Disorders, Young Adult, Social Stigma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review