Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:05:42.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Addiction and Voluntariness: Five “Challenges” to Address in Moving the Discussion Forward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2019

Abstract:

The question as to whether people with an addiction have control (and to what extent) over their addiction, and voluntarily decide to use substances is an ongoing source of controversy in the context of research on addiction, health policy and clinical practice. We describe and discuss a set of five challenges for further research into voluntariness (definition[s], measurement and study tools, first person perspectives, contextual understandings, and connections to broader frameworks) based on our own research experiences and those of others.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Acknowledgement: Writing of this paper was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We would like to thank Marianne Rochette, Sara Ferwati and Corinne Lajoie for assistance. This paper expands a previous blog post: Barned C, Racine E. Is the concept of “will” useful in explaining addictive behaviour? http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/08/is-concept-of-will-useful-in-explaining.html

References

Notes

1. Carter, A, Hall, W. Addiction Neuroethics: The Promises and Perils of Neuroscience Research on Addiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.Google Scholar

2. Levy, N. Addiction and Self-Control . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Hart, CL. Viewing addiction as a brain disease promotes social injustice. Nature Human Behaviour 2017;1:0055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Leshner, A. Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science 1997;278(5335):45–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Charland, LC. Heroin addicts and consent to heroin therapy: A comment on Hall et al. (2003). Addiction 2003;98(11):1634–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Charland, LC. Cynthia’s dilemma: Consenting to heroin prescription. The American Journal of Bioethics 2002;2(2):3747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Foddy, B, Savulescu, J. Addiction and autonomy: Can addicted people consent to the prescription of their drug of addiction? Bioethics 2006;20(1):115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Racine, E, Rousseau-Lesage, S. The voluntary nature of decision-making in addiction: Static metaphysical views versus epistemologically dynamic views. Bioethics 2017;31(5):349–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Levy, N. Addiction, autonomy and ego-depletion: A response to Bennett Foddy and Julian Savulescu. Bioethics 2006;20(1):1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Hall, W, Carter, L, Morley, K. Heroin addiction and the capacity for consent: A reply to Charland. Addiction 2003;98(12):1775–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Holton, R, Berridge, K. Addiction between compulsion and choice. In: Levy, N, eds. Addiction and Self-control: Perspectives from Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013:239–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Dackis, C, O’Brien, C. Neurobiology of addiction: Treatment and public policy ramifications. Nature Neuroscience 2005;8(11):1431–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. See note 4, Leshner 1997.

14. Hall, W, Carter, A, Forlini, C. The brain disease model of addiction: Is it supported by the evidence and has it delivered on its promises? Lancet Psychiatry 2015;2(1):105–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. See note 8, Racine, Rousseau-Lesage 2017.

16. See note 9, Levy 2006.

17. Caplan, A. Denying autonomy in order to create it: The paradox of forcing treatment upon addicts. Addiction 2008;103(12):1919–21.Google ScholarPubMed

18. Hall, W. Stereotactic neurosurgical treatment of addiction: Minimizing the chances of another ’great and desperate cure’. Addiction 2006;101(1):13.Google ScholarPubMed

19. Carter, A, Bell, E, Racine, E, Hall, W. Ethical issues raised by proposals to treat addiction using deep brain stimulation. Neuroethics 2011;4(2):129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Drabble, L, Thomas, S, O’Connor, L, Roberts, SC. State responses to alcohol use and pregnancy: Findings from the alcohol policy information system (APIS). Journal of Social Work Practice 2014;14(2):191206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Leppo, A. The emergence of the foetus: Discourses on foetal alcohol syndrome prevention and compulsory treatment in Finland. Critical Public Health 2012;22(2):179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Chavkin, W, Wise, PH, Elman, D. Policies towards pregnancy and addiction. Sticks without carrots. The Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1998;846(1):335–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Racine, E, Bell, E, Zizzo, N, Green, C. Public discourse on the biology of alcohol addiction: Implications for stigma, self-control, essentialism, and coercive policies in pregnancy. Neuroethics 2015;8(2):177–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. See note 20, Drabble et al. 2014.

25. See note 23, Racine et al. 2015.

26. See note 23, Racine et al. 2015.

27. Bell, E, Andrew, G, Di Pietro, N, Chudley, AE, Reynolds, J, Racine, E. It’s a shame! Stigma against fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Examining the ethical implications for public health practices and policies. Public Health Ethics 2015;9(1):6577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Eggertson, L. Stigma a major barrier to treatment for pregnant women with addictions. The Canadian Medical Association Journal 2013;185(18):1562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. See note 8, Racine, Rousseau-Lesage 2017.

30. Dworkin, R. Liberalism. In: Hampshire S, eds. Public and Private Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1978, at 113–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Dworkin, G. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Beauchamp, T, Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar

33. Grisso, T, Appelbaum, P. Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Healthcare Professionals . New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar

34. Mamotte, N, Wassenaar, D. Measuring voluntariness of consent to research: An instrument review. The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2015;10(2):121–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Vohs, KD, Baumeister, RF. Addiction and free will. Addiction Research and Theory 2009;17(3):231–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. Gray, MT. Freedom and resistance: The phenomenal will in addiction. Nursing Philosophy 2007;8(1):315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

37. Gray, MT. William James’s radical empiricism and the phenomenology of addiction: A philosophical inquiry [dissertation]. New York University;2003.Google Scholar

38. Nahmias, E, Morris, S, Nadelhoffer, T, Turner, J. The phenomenology of free will. Journal of Consciousness Studies 2004;11(7–8):162–79.Google Scholar

39. Volkow, N. Addiction is a disease of free will. 2015 June 12. In: National Institute on Drug Abuse Blog [Internet]; available at https://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2015/06/addiction-disease-free-will (last accessed Mar 14 2019).Google Scholar

40. Wallace, RJ. Addiction as defect of the will: Some philosophical reflections. Law and Philosophy 1999;18(6):621–54.Google Scholar

41. Barned C, Racine E. Is the concept of “will” useful in explaining addictive behaviour? 2018 Aug 07. In: The Neuroethics Blog [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: The American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience; available at http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2018/08/is-concept-of-will-useful-in-explaining.html (last accessed 14 Mar 2019).

42. Feldman, G, Chandrashekar, SP, Wong, KFE. The freedom to excel: Belief in free will predicts better academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences 2016;90:377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. See note 42, Feldman et al. 2016.

44. Feldman, G. Making sense of agency: Belief in free will as a unique and important construct. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2017;11(1):115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. Judge, TA, Locke, EA, Durham, CC. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior 1997;19:151–88.Google Scholar

46. Bandura, A, Ramachaudran, VS. Self-efficacy. In: Corsini, RJ, eds. Encyclopedia of Psychology , 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1994:368–9.Google Scholar

47. See note 44, Feldman 2017.

48. See note 44, Feldman 2017.

49. Sappington, A. Recent psychological approaches to the free will versus determinism issue. Psychological Bulletin 1990;108(1):1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50. See note 44, Feldman 2017.

51. See note 44, Feldman 2017.

52. Rigoni, D, Kuhn, S, Sartori, G, Brass, M. Inducing disbelief in free will alters brain correlates of preconscious motor preparation: The brain minds whether we believe in free will or not. Psychological Science 2011;22(5):613–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

53. See note 31, Dworkin 1988.

54. Frankfurt, HG. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy 1971;68(1):520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. Felsen, G, Reiner, PB. How the neuroscience of decision making informs our conception of autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2011;2(3):314.Google Scholar

56. Friedrich O, Racine E, Steinert S, Pömsl J, Jox, RJ. An analysis of the impact of brain-computer interfaces on autonomy. Neuroethics 2018;113.Google Scholar

57. See note 44, Feldman 2017.

58. See note 44, Feldman 2017.

59. Rotter, JB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 1966;80(1):128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. Sheffer, C, MacKillop, J, McGeary, J, Landes, R, Carter, L, Yi, R, et al. Delay discounting, locus of control, and cognitive impulsiveness independently predict tobacco dependence treatment outcomes in a highly dependent, lower socioeconomic group of smokers. The American Journal on Addictions 2012;21(3):221–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. See note 60, Sheffer et al. 2012.

62. See note 44, Feldman 2017.

63. Stillman, TF, Baumeister, RF, Mele, AR. Free will in everyday life: Autobiographical accounts of free and unfree action. Philosophical Psychology 2011;24(3):381–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64. See note 44, Feldman 2017.

65. Fernández-Serrano, MJ, Perales, JC, Moreno-López, L, Pérez-García, M, Verdejo-García, A. Neuropsychological profiling of impulsivity and compulsivity in cocaine dependent individuals. Psychopharmacology 2012;219(2):673–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

66. Harrison, EL, Coppola, S, McKee, SA. Nicotine deprivation and trait impulsivity affect smokers’ performance on cognitive tasks of inhibition and attention. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2009;17(2):91–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

67. Ansell, EB, Laws, HB, Roche, MJ, Sinha, R. Effects of marijuana use on impulsivity and hostility in daily life. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2015;148:136–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

68. Blanchard, BE, Stevens, AK, Littlefield, AK, Talley, AE, Brown, JL. Examining the link between nonmedical use of sedatives, tranquilizers, and pain relievers with dispositions toward impulsivity among college students. Addictive Behaviors 2017;69:813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

69. Torres, A, Catena, A, Megías, A, Maldonado, A, Cándido, A, Verdejo-García, A, et al. Emotional and non-emotional pathways to impulsive behavior and addiction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2013;7:43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

70. Abbott, MW. Locus of control and treatment outcome in alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1984;45(1):4652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

71. Bunch, J, Schneider, H. Smoking-specific locus of control. Psychological Reports 1991;69(3_suppl):1075–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

72. Abikoye, G, Fusigboye, A. Gender, locus of control and smoking habits of undergraduate students. African Journal of Drug and Alcohol Studies 2010;9(2):7180.Google Scholar

73. Johnson, EE, Nora, RM, Tan, B, Bustos, N. Comparison of two locus of control scales in predicting relapse in an alcoholic population. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1991;72(1):4350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74. Natera, G, Herrejon, M, Casco, M. Locus of control in couples with different patterns of alcohol consumption. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 1988;22(3):179–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

75. Oswald, LM, Walker, GC, Reilly, EL, Krajewski, KJ, Parker, CA. Measurement of locus of control in cocaine abusers. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 1992;13(2):8194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

76. Adalbjarnardottir, S, Rafnsson, FD. Perceived control in adolescent substance use: Concurrent and longitudinal analyses. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 2001;15(1):2532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

77. Bamford, Z, Booth, PG, McGuire, J, Salmon, P. Minimal intervention as a preparation for the treatment of alcohol dependency. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 2005;44(2):289–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

78. Asselmann, E, Hilbert, K, Hoyer, J, Wittchen, HU, Lieb, R, Bühringer, G, et al. Self-reported volitional control in adolescents and young adults from a community cohort: Associations with current, past and future mental disorders. Psychiatry Research 2018;260:292–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79. Bakhshani, NM, Hossienbor, M. A comparative study of self-regulation in substance dependent and non-dependent individuals. Global Journal of Health Science 2013;5(6):40–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

80. Baer, JS, Lichtenstein, E. Classification and prediction of smoking relapse episodes: An exploration of individual differences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1988;56(1):104–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

81. Whiteside, SP, Lynam, DR. The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences 2001;30(4):669–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82. Patton, JH, Stanford, MS, Barratt, ES. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 1995;51(6):768–74.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

83. Rakos, RF, Steyer, KR, Skala, S, Slane, S. Belief in free will: Measurement and conceptualization innovations. Behavior and Social Issues 2008;17(1):2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84. Rotter, JB. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1975;43(1):56–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

85. Donovan, DM, O’Leary, MR. The Drinking-Related Locus of Control Scale. Reliability, factor structure and validity. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1978;39(5):759–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

86. Craig, AR, Franklin, JA, Andrews, G. A scale to measure locus of control of behaviour. British Journal of Medical Psychology 1984;57(2):173–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

87. See note 59, Rotter 1966.

88. Worell, L, Tumilty, TN. The measurement of locus of control among alcoholics. In: Lefcourt, HM, ed. Research with the Locus of Control. New York, NY: Acadamic Press; 1981:1321.Google Scholar

89. Grasmick, HG, Tittle, CR, Bursik, RJ Jr, Arneklev, BJ. Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 1993;30(1):529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Tangney, JP, Baumeister, RF, Boone, AL. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality 2004;72(2):271324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

91. Kendall, PC, Wilcox, LE. Self-control in children: Development of a rating scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical psychology 1979;47(6):1020–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

92. de Vries, H, Dijkstra, M, Kuhlman, P. Self-efficacy: The third factor besides attitude and subjective norm as a predictor of behavioural intentions. Health Education Research 1988;3(3):273–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

93. Schwarzer, R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman, J, Wright, S, Johnston, M, eds. Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Belief . Windsor: NFER-NELSON; 1995:35–7.Google Scholar

94. Breslin, FC, Sobell, LC, Sobell, MB, Agrawal, S. A comparison of a brief and long version of the Situational Confidence Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy 2000;38(12):1211–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

95. Ilfeld, FW. Psychologic status of community residents along major demographic dimensions. Archives of General Psychiatry 1978;35(6):716–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

96. Annis, HM, Davis, CS. Assessment of expectancies. In: Donovan, DM, Marlatt, GA, eds. The Guilford Behavioral Assessment Sesies. Assessment of Addictive Behaviors. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1988:84111Google Scholar

97. Young, RM, Oei, TP, Crook, G. Development of a drinking self-efficacy questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 1991;13(1):115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98. Gwaltney, CJ, Shiffman, S, Normal, GJ, Paty, JA, Kassel, JD, Gnys, M, et al. Does smoking abstinence self-efficacy vary across situations? Identifying context-specificity within the Relapse Situation Efficacy Questionnaire. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2001;69(3):516–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

99. Oei, TP, Hasking, PA, Young, RM. Drinking refusal self-efficacy questionnaire-revised (DRSEQ-R): A new factor structure with confirmatory factor analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2005;78(3):297307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

100. DiClemente, CC, Carbonari, JP, Montgomery, R, Hughes, SO. The alcohol abstinence self-efficacy scale. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 1994;55(2):141–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

101. Velicer, WF, Diclemente, CC, Rossi, JS, Prochaska, JO. Relapse situations and self-efficacy: An integrative model. Addictive Behaviors 1990;15(3):271–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

102. Conners, NA, Bradley, RH, Whiteside-Mansell, L, Crone, CC. A comprehensive substance abuse treatment program for women and their children: An initial evaluation. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2001;21(2):6775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

103. Condiotte, MM, Lichtenstein, E. Self-efficacy and relapse in smoking cessation programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1981;49(5):648–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

104. Brown, JM, Miller, WR, Lawendowski, LA. The self-regulation questionnaire. In: VandeCreek, L, Jackson, TL, eds. Innovation in Clinical Practice: A Sourcebook. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange; 1999:281–92.Google Scholar

105. Carey, KB, Neal, DJ, Collins, SE. A psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Addictive Behaviors 2004;29(2):253–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

106. Ibánez, MI, Ruipérez, MA, Moya, J, Marqués, MJ, Ortet, G. A short version of the self-regulation inventory (SRI-S). Personality and Individual Differences 2005;39(6):1055–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

107. Kuhl, J, Fuhrmann, A. Decomposing self-regulation and self-control: The volitional components inventory. In: Heckhausen, J, Dweck, CS, eds. Motivation and Self-Regulation Across the Life Span. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1998:1449.Google Scholar

108. See note 42, Feldman et al. 2016.

109. Brass, M, Lynn, MT, Demanet, J, Rigoni, D. Imaging volition: What the brain can tell us about the will. Experimental Brain Research 2013;229(3):301–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

110. Feldman, G, Baumeister, RF, Wong, KFE. Free will is about choosing: The link between choice and the belief in free will. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2014;55:239–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

111. Alquist, JL, Ainsworth, SE, Baumeister, RF. Determined to conform: Disbelief in free will increases conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2013;49(1):80–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112. Baumeister, RF, Brewer, LE. Believing versus disbelieving in free will: Correlates and consequences. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2012;6(10):736–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113. See note 42, Feldman et al. 2016.

114. Stillman, TF, Baumeister, RF, Vohs, KD, Lambert, NM, Fincham, FD, Brewer, LE. Personal philosophy and personnel achievement: Belief in free will predicts better job performance. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2010;1(1):4350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

115. See note 114, Stillman 2010.

116. See note 42, Feldman et al. 2016.

117. Crescioni, AW, Baumeister, RF, Ainsworth, SE, Ent, MR, Lambert, NM. Subjective correlates and consequences of belief in free wil. Philosophical Psychology 2016;29(1):4163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

118. Vohs, KD, Schooler, JW. The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating. Psychological Science 2008;19(1):4954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

119. Baumeister, RF, Masicampo, EJ, DeWall, CN. Prosocial benefits of feeling free: Disbelief in free will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2009;35(2):260–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

120. See note 119, Baumeister et al. 2009.

121. Levy, N. The social: A missing term in the debate over addiction and voluntary control. The American Journal of Bioethics 2007;7(1):35–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

122. Snoek, A, Levy, N, Kennett, J. Strong-willed but not successful: The importance of strategies in recovery from addiction. Addictive Behaviors Reports 2016;4:102–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123. See note 122, Snoek et al. 2016.

124. See note 122, Snoek et al. 2016.

125. Karasaki, M, Fraser, S, Moore, D, Dietze, P. The place of volition in addiction: Differing approaches and their implications for policy and service provision. Drug and Alcohol Review 2013;32(2):195204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

126. Ryff, CD. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the science and practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2014;83(1):1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

127. Ryff, CD. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1989;57(6):1069–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

128. Ryan, RM, Deci, EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 2000;55(1):6878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

129. Wegener, JR, Ludlow, Clark E., Olsen, Ammon J., Tortosa, Marta, Wintch, Philip H. Ego depletion: A contributing factor of hopelessness depression. Intuition 2007;3(1):12–7.Google Scholar

130. Seligman, MEP. Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman; 1975.Google Scholar

131. See note 36, Gray 2007.

132. See note 37, Gray 2004.

133. Racine, E. A proposal for a scientifically-informed and instrumentalist account of free will and voluntary action. Frontiers in Psychology 2017;8:754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

134. Ewusi-Boisvert, E, Racine, E. A critical review of methodologies and results in recent research on belief in free will. Neuroethics 2018;11(1):97110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

135. See note 9, Levy 2006.

136. See note 133, Racine 2017.

137. Rauthmann, JF, Sherman, RA, Funder, DC. Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality 2015;29(3):363–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

138. Racine E, Saigle V. Static and dynamic metaphysics of free will: A pragmatic perspective. 2014 Jan 14. In: The Neuroethics Blog [Internet]. Atlanta, GA: The American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience; available at http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2014/01/static-and-dynamic-metaphysics-of-free.html (last accessed 14 Mar 2019).

139. Dewey, J. Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology . New York, NY: Holt; 1922.Google Scholar

140. Hammersley, M, Atkinson, P. Ethnography: Principles in Practice . London: Routledge; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

141. Knoblauch, H. Focused ethnography. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2005;6(3):44.Google Scholar

142. Hoffmaster, B. Can ethnography save the life of medical ethics? Social Science & Medicine 1992; 35(12):1421–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

143. See note 133, Racine 2017.

144. See note 134, Ewusi-Boisvert, Racine 2018.

145. See note 138, Racine, Saigle 2014.

146. See note 8, Racine, Rousseau-Lesage 2017.

147. See note 129, Wegener et al. 2007.

148. See note 118, Vohs, Schooler 2008.

149. See note 138, Racine, Saigle 2014.

150. Racine, E, Sattler, S, Escande, A. Free will and the brain disease model of addiction: The not so seductive allure of neuroscience and its modest impact on the attribution of free will to people with an addiction. Frontiers in Psychology 2017;8:1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

151. Pitts-Taylor, V. The plastic brain: Neoliberalism and the neuronal self. Health 2010;14(6):635–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

152. Racine, E, Aspler, J, Forlini, C, Chandler, J. Contextualized autonomy and liberalism: Broadening the lenses on complementary and alternative medicines in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2017;27(1):141CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

153. See note 23, Racine et al. 2015.

154. Aspler, J, Zizzo, N, Di Pietro, N, Racine, E. Stereotyping and stigmatising disability: A content analysis of canadian print news media about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 2018;7(3):89121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

155. Sattler, S, Escande, A, Racine, E, Göritz, AS. Public stigma toward people with drug addiction: A factorial survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2017;78(3):415–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

156. See note 8, Racine, Rousseau-Lesage 2017.

157. See note 128, Ryan and Deci 2000.

158. Say, R, Murtagh, M, Thomson, R. Patients’ preference for involvement in medical decision making: A narrative review. Patient Education and Counseling 2006;60(2):102–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

159. Zizzo, N, Bell, E, Lafontaine, A-L, Racine, E. Examining chronic care patient preferences for involvement in healthcare decision making: The case of early stage Parkinson’s disease patients in a patient-centred clinic. Health Expectations 2016;20(4):655–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

160. Harvard Mental Health Letter. How addiction hijacks the brain. Desire initiates the process, but learning sustains it. The Harvard Mental Health Letter 2011;28(1):13.Google Scholar

161. See note 4, Leshner 1997.

162. Volkow, ND, Li, TK. Drugs and alcohol: Treating and preventing abuse, addiction and their medical consequences. Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2005;108(1):317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

163. See note 12, Dackis, O’Brien 2005.

164. Hyman, SE. The neurobiology of addiction: Implications for voluntary control of behavior. The American Journal of Bioethics 2007;7(1):811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

165. See note 12, Dackis, O’Brien 2005.

166. Hammer, R, Dingel, M, Ostergren, J, Partridge, B, McCormick, J, Koenig, BA. Addiction: Current criticism of the brain disease paradigm. The American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2013;4(3):2732.Google ScholarPubMed

167. Szott, K. Contingencies of the will: Uses of harm reduction and the disease model of addiction among health care practitioners. Health 2015;19(5):507–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

168. See note 23, Racine et al. 2015.

169. Gartner, CE, Carter, A, Partridge, B. What are the public policy implications of a neurobiological view of addiction? Addiction 2012;107(7):1199–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

170. See note 167, Szott 2015.

171. Racine, E, Nguyen, V, Saigle, V, Dubljevic, V. Media portrayal of a landmark neuroscience experiment on free will. Science and Engineering Ethics 2018;23(4):9891007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

172. Saigle, V, Dubljevic, V, Racine, E. The impact of a landmark neuroscience study on “free will”: A review of articles using Libet et al.’s methods. The American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2018;9(1):2941.Google Scholar

173. See note 12, Dackis, O’Brien 2005.

174. See note 23, Racine et al. 2015.

175. See note 23, Racine et al. 2015.

176. See note 167, Szott 2015.