untitled Embodiment, Interaction, and Experience: Toward a Comprehensive Model in Addiction Science Nicholas Zautra*y Current theories of addiction try to explain what addiction is, who experiences it, why it occurs, and how it develops and persists. In this article, I explain why none of these theories can be accepted as a comprehensive model. I argue that current models fail to account for differences in embodiment, interaction processes, and the experience of ad- diction. To redress these limiting factors, I design a proposal for an enactive account of addiction that follows the enactive model of autism proposed by Hanne De Jaegher. 1. Introduction. Addiction—“a strong and habitual want that significantly reduces control and leads to significant harm” (Sinnott-Armstrong and Pick- ard 2013)—is a difficult-to-model form of psychopathology faced with sev- eral philosophical questions. Is addiction a disease (Leshner 1997; Heyman 2009)? Are individuals who experience addiction (henceforth termed IWEA) morally or legally responsible (Sinnott-Armstrong and Pickard 2013)? What does it mean to say that IWEA are ‘powerless’ (Matthews 2010)? Which pur- poses should a presiding model of addiction serve (Sinnott-Armstrong and Pickard 2013)? Which IWEA should be included in empirical studies? Which account of addiction is the most precise (Sinnott-Armstrong and Pickard 2013)? What does it mean to say, “I am addicted”? How should I think and feel about individuals who use and perhaps also abuse drugs? Unfortunately, current theories of addiction are inherently unsatisfactory in resolving these issues. Specifically, the widely accepted medical model of addiction (NIDA 2014) is unable to account for differences in embodiment, *To contact the author, please write to: 1011 E. Third Street, Goodbody Hall 130, Bloomington, IN 47405; e-mail: nzautra@indiana.edu. yI would like to thank Randall Beer, Shane Zappettini, Anastasia Nikoulina, Eran Magnon, Dan Qaurooni, Evan Arnet, and the participants at the PSA 2014 “Contributed Papers: Psy- chiatry” session for valuable discussion and feedback. Philosophy of Science, 82 (December 2015) pp. 1023–1034. 0031-8248/2015/8205-0024$10.00 Copyright 2015 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved. 1023 interaction processes, and the experience of addiction. With the goal of one day resolving these issues, I offer a comprehensive model of addiction that follows the enactive account of autism proposed by Hanne De Jaegher. With the enactive approach, embodiment, interaction processes, and experience are fundamental to our understanding of psychopathology. In explicating an enactive model, I show that addiction is best character- ized as a difference in embodiment—that is, a difference in “both the body as a lived, experiential structure and the body as context or milieu of cogni- tive mechanisms” (Varela, Thompson, and Rosch 1991, xvi). Under an enactive approach, addiction “depends upon the kinds of experiences that come from having a body with distinct sensorimotor capacities [i.e., reg- ularities in how sensory stimulation and motor action depends on an indi- vidual’s active bodily engagement with the environment],” which “are themselves embedded in a more encompassing biological, psychological, and cultural context” (173). I argue that, like autism (De Jaegher 2013) and other psychopathologies (Fuchs 2010; McGann, De Jaegher, and Di Paolo 2013), addiction can be described as a unique way of connecting to, making sense of, and navi- gating the world, determined by the IWEA and their particular embodiment as much as by their environment. As De Jaegher (2013) has shown with her enactive account of autism, I hope to establish that a comprehensive model of addiction is possible, and that such a model requires the integration of ac- counts of the embodiment, interaction processes, and experience of addiction. 2. Current Theories. Addiction is seen as arising “out of either pre-existing characteristics of individuals or the acquisition of characteristics that, to- gether with a given set of environmental circumstances, result in powerful motivations to engage in harmful behavior patterns” (West 2013, 34). IWEA, as characterized by the Europe Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Ad- diction, “are regarded as possessing particular dispositions and/or inhabiting particular environments that promote addiction, through either initial en- gagement in the addictive activity or susceptibility to the development of ad- diction once the individual has undertaken the activity and been exposed to its consequences” (34). The main types of explanatory theories include mod- els at the level of the individual (e.g., automatic processing theories, reflective choice theories, goal-focused theories, biological theories, process-of-change theories, integrative theories) and models at the population-group level (e.g., social network theories, economic models, communication/marketing the- ories, organizational systems models). 3. Problems with Current Theories. More important than specific criti- cisms and limitations of each theory is that none of the theories serve as a comprehensive model—that is, none of the theories suffice on their own 1024 NICHOLAS ZAUTRA to explain addiction as a whole. According to West (2013, 88), “different contexts and different addictive behaviors require different blends of poli- cies at different times in different cultures” and thus require different the- ories. As a result, each current theory is limited in scope and has gaps that have yet to be effectively addressed. Maintaining multiple theories of addic- tion thus raises epistemological, methodological, and practical concerns. This suggests that it may be beneficial to unify the different theories in an inte- grative framework to help better explain addiction. A comprehensive model of addiction would incorporate the pertinent aspects of each individual theory and combine them into a single, more robust model that could be utilized to improve treatment strategies (West 2013). Three limiting factors of current theories, however, restrict them from being combined into a comprehensive model. First, being disembodied and individualistic, they have difficulty characterizing how addiction re- flects a difference in embodiment. Differences in embodiment among IWEA abound, for example, in attentional bias, decision making, immediate reward bias, impulsivity, learning, and memory (Crews and Boettiger 2009; Cha- non, Sours, and Boettiger 2010; Yalachkov, Kaiser, and Naumer 2010). Un- fortunately, a comprehensive framework to explain those differences is miss- ing. As a result, proper diagnoses and treatment strategies remain insufficient. Second, models of addiction do not consider the interaction process be- tween (a) IWEA and their environment and (b) IWEA and other agents as central. Interaction processes influence, modify, and, in part, create the be- havior patterns and intentions of IWEA. Without sufficient focus on the ways in which IWEA interact and “how that interaction transforms over time in a web of dynamics and constraints” (McGann et al. 2013, 207), a rigorous description of the relation between IWEA and their environment—an appro- priate scientific description of addiction—cannot be developed. Third, current models cannot adequately account for the experience of addiction. Experiences of addiction—for example, “the phenomenon of crav- ing” (Jellinek 1960), “wanting versus liking” (Berridge and Robinson 1995), and “chronic loneliness”—play an integral role in deterring attempts at re- covery (Fidler and West 2011). Additionally, such experiences are frequently drawn upon in support groups that help individuals acknowledge the presence of addiction, as well as identify with other members. Scientific concern for experiential variables is miniscule in comparison to scientific reports on com- mon usage and reference to harm. Without a model that can account for these three factors, we do not have a comprehensive model of addiction. These factors are key elements of the enactive account of addiction I propose here. 4. The Enactive Account of Addiction. The enactive account of addiction is a nonreductive, naturalistic model that views addictive processes (e.g., EMBODIMENT, INTERACTION, AND EXPERIENCE 1025 craving, mental obsessions, abnormal reactions) as “dynamic and embed- ded interactions” (McGann et al. 2013, 203) between IWEA and their en- vironment.1 Addiction is not seen as residing in IWEA, but “as emerging, existing dynamically in the relationship between [IWEA] and their sur- roundings, including other agents” (203). Such a model of addiction “groups central concepts (such as action, sense, and agency) in the autonomous or- ganization of [IWEA] and their value-laden, meaningful engagements with their environment” (203). Two analogies, borrowed from McGann et al. (2013), may be useful. For example, a handshake does not exist except during its enaction. With the enactive approach, the same is true of addiction—it is “intrinsically relational and dynamic in nature” (McGann et al. 2013, 203). A dance en- dures “only while the dancers continue to act, and is defined by the coor- dination, the mutual sensitivity, and reciprocal influence between the dancers and the music” (203). With enaction, addiction “is a dynamically constituted process and, like a dance, or a handshake, should be studied and understood in dynamic, contextualized terms” (203). The enactive account of addiction supports the following five related ideas. These five ideas, synthesized by Thompson (2007) to describe and unify the ideas of the enactive approach to cognitive science, are reworked to apply to addiction: 1. IWEA are autonomous agents that actively generate and maintain their identities and thereby enact or bring forth their own world. 2. The nervous system of IWEA is an autonomous system: it actively generates and maintains its own coherent and meaningful patterns of activity, according to its operation as an organizationally closed or circular and re-entrant sensorimotor network of interacting neurons. 3. Addiction is a difference in embodied action and sense-making; ad- dictive structures and processes emerge from recurrent sensorimotor patterns of perception and action. 4. An IWEA’s world is not a prespecified, external realm, represented internally by the brain, but a relational domain enacted or brought forth by that IWEA’s autonomous agency and mode of coupling with the environment. 5. Experience is not an epiphenomenal side issue, but central to any un- derstanding of addiction, and it needs to be investigated in a comple- mentary and mutually informing way. 1. McGann et al. (2013) describe the enactive approach to cognitive science. This quotation and several others that follow made no reference to addiction. In order to connect their work on the enactive approach to addiction, I have used their words with slight modifications to demonstrate their applicability. 1026 NICHOLAS ZAUTRA 4.1. Sense-Making. These five related ideas help us understand one of the core tenets of the enactive account of addiction—that situations are meaningful (McGann et al. 2013) to IWEA. Under this notion, addiction is experienced as an IWEA copes with or makes sense of her situations. Addic- tion, understood as a difference in embodiment and sense-making, is the pro- cess of “coordinating the needs of [IWEA] (biological, affective/cognitive, social) with environmental factors (either facilitating or hindering)” (McGann et al. 2013, 204). Sense-making is related to IWEA’s “autonomy at various levels, such as that of living processes of material self-construction” (McGann et al. 2013, 204). “The needs and demands for the continuation of a precarious form of life explain why [IWEA] have a meaningful perspective on their interac- tions with the environment, why things matter to them” (204). Thus, the enactive account of addiction “offers an approach of naturalizing notions such as meaning, value, significance, and normativity” associated with addic- tion “in ways that can still be examined using dynamical systems tools” (205). Furthermore, it allows for a comprehensive model by characterizing addiction in terms of differences in embodiment in the way IWEA coordi- nate their needs with environmental factors. 4.2. Participatory Sense-Making. Interaction between IWEA and their environment involves engagement among IWEA, other autonomous agents, and their environment. Engagement encompasses the qualitative features of interactions once they start to “take on” a life of their own (De Jaegher 2013). The experience of engagement is “the fluctuating feelings of connectedness with an other, including that of being in the flow of an interaction and ten- sions” (De Jaegher 2013, 6). Interaction is defined “on the basis of the autonomy of the interaction process and that of the individuals involved” (De Jaegher 2013, 6). A social interaction is “a co-regulated coupling between at least two autonomous agents” (6). The idea of coupling is the mutual influence between IWEA and their environment from which meaningful behavior emerges (McGann et al. 2013). Each coupled IWEA “contributes to its co-regulation, but the interaction process [being autonomous] also self-organizes and self main- tains” (De Jaegher 2013, 6).2 This implies that the interaction itself some- times endures in a way that none of its participants intended. Through coordination, interactions between IWEA self-organize and self-maintain. 2. De Jaegher (2013) describes components of the enactive approach in relation to the enactive account of autism. This quotation and several others that follow made no reference to addiction. In order to connect her work on the enactive account of autism to addiction, I have used her words with slight modifications to demonstrate their applicability. EMBODIMENT, INTERACTION, AND EXPERIENCE 1027 Coordination is “the non-accidental correlation between the behaviors of two or more systems that are in sustained coupling, or have been coupled in the past, or have been coupled to another, common, system” (De Jaegher and Di Paolo 2007, 490). Consequently, when an IWEA with certain capabilities, intentions, and motivations interacts with other agents and the environment, not only do the participants and/or the environment influence the sense-making, but also the interaction processes as such modulate the sense-making that takes place (De Jaegher 2013). It is this notion that is the key concept of participatory sense-making (De Jaegher and Di Paolo 2007). That is, “we literally partici- pate in each other’s sense-making. We generate and transform meaning to- gether in and through interacting” (De Jaegher 2013, 7). This means that, in application to addiction, capabilities, intentions, and motivations of IWEA can be explained as being created and altered via interactions. Interaction among IWEA, other agents, and their environment “opens up new domains of sense-making” that such IWEA “would not have had on ½their� own” (De Jaegher 2013, 7). In short, the concept of participatory sense-making provides a framework to understand interactive processes associated with addiction. 4.3. The World of IWEA. Similar to individuals who experience au- tism, the ways in which IWEA act are typically viewed as disordered, a re- sult of a brain disease, to be diagnosed and treated away. Two questions considered by De Jaegher (2013) (with slight modifications so as to apply to addiction) are as follows: (1) Why do IWEA move and perceive in the way that they do? (2) What does this have to do with how IWEA engage with and understand the world, others, and themselves? If embodiment and sense-making are fundamentally interconnected, these questions are essential (De Jaegher 2013). When IWEA move, perceive, or cope with emotions differently (e.g., obsessively engage in, or feel compelled to engage in, an addictive behavior in response to being situated within close proximity of reward-predicting stimuli or a stressful environment), this in- separably relates to how they understand the world. The world is not pre- specified but is brought forth through the process of sense-making, defined by differences in embodiment (Thompson 2007). Just as how the color bluish-green is not in light or perception but in the interaction between light and perception, the activity of the nervous system is not determined by the external world but by the nervous system itself—and thus, the world is not internally represented but is instead brought forth (Maturana 1980). This fact, however, is underrecognized in current theories. The enactive account of addiction emphasizes the link between the sensorimotor-affective (i.e., embodied) characteristics of IWEA and the ways in which IWEA make sense of their world. As with autism (De Jaegher 2013), the notion of sense-making is ideally situated to integrate evidence 1028 NICHOLAS ZAUTRA of the sensorimotor-affective aspects of IWEA that are involved in different stages and mechanisms of addiction (Yalachkov et al. 2010) that have his- torically been examined in isolation. The concept of sense-making may ul- timately help to connect the key embodied aspects of addiction in a com- prehensive model. 5. Evidence for a Difference in Embodiment and Sense-Making in Ad- diction 5.1. Perception in Addiction. I now review evidence of the particu- lar ways in which the sensorimotor-affective aspects of IWEA differ from those who do not experience addiction. IWEA exhibit attentional bias—“a non-conscious tendency to focus attention on particular types of objects or features”—toward reward-predicting stimuli (i.e., stimuli for which indi- viduals are willing to work and which are approached), primarily drug- or addictive-behavior-related cues (West 2013, 89). IWEA additionally show cognitive bias, or a propensity to “preferentially process information or form mental representations of particular types of objects or features of objects in the environment” (90), toward stimuli or situations associated with their addiction (McCusker 2001). IWEA may also acquire object recognition and classification expertise with regard to real stimuli or images associated with their addiction (Yalachkov et al. 2010). Individuals in various stages of addiction exhibit markedly different eval- uations, that is, “beliefs about the degree to which something is good or bad in some way, e.g. harmful vs. beneficial, morally right or wrong,” toward par- ticular actions relevant to obtaining a positive reward and/or their addictive behavior (West 2013, 90). For example, an IWEA may perceive stealing from a family member in order to purchase alcohol or using drugs in the presence of their children as morally permissible—even “the right thing to do.” Individ- uals’ incentive salience—a motivational ‘wanting’ attributed to a reward- predicting stimuli—is significantly higher compared to that of individuals who do not experience addiction (Berridge and Robinson 1995). MacKillop et al. provided evidence of greater delayed reward discounting (DRD) in IWEA, specifically “in individuals exhibiting addictive behavior in general and particularly in individuals who meet criteria for an addictive disorder” (2011, 2). A prime example of DRD includes temporal discounting, or the tendency to prefer immediate but modest rewards to future but sizable re- wards (MacKillop et al. 2011). In other words, IWEA prefer everything “now.” Perceived control—“the extent to which people believe they can enact a given behavior” (West 2013, 92)—continuously becomes distorted in IWEA, almost always in relation to control over their addictive behavior. For example, IWEA in recovery report intruding perceptual thoughts, such EMBODIMENT, INTERACTION, AND EXPERIENCE 1029 as “I don’t have addiction,” “I am normal,” and “I can control my addictive behavior.” Alcoholics Anonymous speaks toward this perceptual difference, suggesting that “the idea that somehow, someday he will control his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this il- lusion is astonishing” (Alcoholics Anonymous 2001, 30). Such distortions of perception undeniably play into the high relapse rates seen in addiction. 5.2. Movement in Addiction. Research primarily has focused on exec- utive dysfunction, whereby IWEA have an impaired ability for reflective control over behavior and risk taking. In less studied yet notable movement differences, IWEA have a distinct and shared willingness to fixate on a par- ticular solution, typically in an effort to achieve rewarding stimuli, beyond that of individuals who do not experience addiction. With addictive behav- ior, for example, an IWEA may be willing to bike 20+ miles in 110-degree heat if it is the only means to acquire the drugs they perceive to “want” or “need.” Another difference is the tendency for individuals to create and ad- here to comforting ritualistic behaviors, typically around reward-predicting stimuli. Individuals will develop soothing routines around addictive behavior whereby the routines themselves can become desired as much as the reward- predicting stimuli. Lastly, IWEA are known to consistently prioritize the needs of the self above others. IWEA tend to go out of their way to secure reward- predicting stimuli for themselves first and foremost. In other words, when the oxygen masks on the metaphorical airplanes deploy, IWEA are quite profi- cient at securing their own masks first. 5.3. Affect and Experience in Addiction. Feelings of anxiety and de- pression are highly predictive of addictive behavior and relapse in IWEA. With IWEA, addictive learned behaviors serve as a primary coping strategy. In addition, IWEA report a heightened sensitivity to emotions. They tend to “dislike” feeling feelings and have a difficult time identifying, communicat- ing, and knowing what to do about feelings. Some theorists take differences in affect in IWEA so far as to characterize addiction itself as a “feelings disease,” or highlight specific feelings (e.g., shame) as being at the core of addiction (O’Connor et al. 1994). Aside from reported difficulty with affect, IWEA report such phenome- nal experiences as “not being given the script to life,” “always being on low- grade alert,” and “always feeling like something is missing.” Such affective experiences may exist in individuals who do not experience addiction. Such life experiences no doubt are inherent in the human experience. Yet such experiences tend to be pronounced in IWEA. Relieving or removing these experiences of uncomfortable affect are often cited as the “reason” or “pur- pose” IWEA engage in addictive behavior in the first place. 1030 NICHOLAS ZAUTRA 5.4. From Embodiment to Sense-Making. Similar to autism, differ- ences in embodiment imply that there is different sense-making in addic- tion. As these differences in embodiment and sense-making in addiction are essentially linked, cognitive processes of IWEA are affected by embodied states—and those embodied states determine how IWEA relate to the world (De Jaegher 2013). To say that IWEA relate to the world is to say that they “construct and pick up as relevant that which is meaningful to [them], but not necessarily to someone else” (De Jaegher 2013, 9). Perceptual and sensory differences, particular patterns of moving, and distinct ways in which IWEA relate to emotions (i.e., differences in embodiment) can be viewed as alter- native ways in which IWEA perceive the world and also as strategies to cope with it (De Jaegher 2013). For example, IWEA exhibit addictive behavior in order to relieve the experience of “always feeling like something is missing.” If embodiment differences in IWEA are intrinsically linked with sense- making in addiction, I suggest, as De Jaegher (2013) has with autism, that many IWEA will find joy or significance in behaviors and embodied styles of sense-making that are considered “addictive.” A less studied factor in perceptual differences is the aesthetic element of reward-predicting stimuli. There may be significance to some addictive sense-making that simply is that of enjoying, thinking about, or “taking in” reward-predicting stimuli indirectly. This can involve discussing, telling stories, listening to songs, smelling, and appreciating such stimuli as they are. IWEA tend to value, care about, place priority on, and even enjoy reward-predicting stimuli above and beyond individuals who do not experience addiction. The enactive account of addiction thus considers the way IWEA relate to the world as intrinsically meaningful to them. In this, IWEA are no different from anyone else. Following De Jaegher (2013), a simple way to test this approach is to see whether IWEA do in fact enjoy or suffer from that which they do. The notion that IWEA gain a sense of ease and comfort from their par- ticular activities, preferences, and thinking styles comes from positive re- ward theories. Evidence points toward IWEA reporting “stronger euphori- ant effects from many addictive drugs and activities” (West 2013, 53; see also Wise and Bozarth 1987) than individuals who do not experience ad- diction. For example, verbal reports of IWEA’s “first time” fully experi- encing an addictive behavior of choice describe it as equivalent to a pro- found religious experience, whereby the “world opened up,” “I felt like I could finally breathe,” or “I finally felt comfortable in my own skin.” Such ad- dictive behaviors also provide functional benefits, for example, “maintaining a desired body shape” (Cawley, Markowitz, and Tauras 2004) and managing psychological distress (Pickard 2012). At least initially, IWEA tend to enjoy their addictive behaviors. EMBODIMENT, INTERACTION, AND EXPERIENCE 1031 The creation and adherence to ritualistic behaviors in addiction, like in autism, are additionally associated with great positive reward. Such behav- iors appear to be highly motivating for IWEA. When IWEA engage in or an- ticipate engaging in such behaviors, there is often an observed increase in positive affect, something like a “bounce to their step” that was not there be- fore. Ritualistic behaviors are considered by Lovaas, Newsom, and Hickman (1987) and De Jaegher (2013) to be “intrinsically motivating for the percep- tual reinforcement and self-stimulation that they provide, even connecting this to the sensory joys of gourmet food, art, recreational drugs, and smoking” (De Jaegher 2013, 10). While they might be meaningful and enjoyable, ritualistic behaviors and other particularities in IWEA often interfere with daily living. As a result, such behaviors can be challenging, for both the IWEA and their environ- ment. However, this does not necessitate that such differences could not in themselves be important for IWEA. These embodied states, similar to au- tism, might only be considered troublesome “as a consequence of their manifesting in a context that can or will not accommodate them” (De Jaegher 2013, 10). This is not, however, to condone such addictive behaviors. Instead, I argue that dealing with differences in embodiment in IWEA should start from the meaning that they have for the IWEA, not from ques- tions of whether they are appropriate and how to eliminate them. Focusing on the meaning can help researchers to find suitable ways for IWEA to cope with differences in embodiment. Coinciding with this idea, it has been hy- pothesized that the key to understanding why some individuals “mature out” of addiction and some do not “lies in the purpose served” by addictive behaviors (Pickard 2012, 2). 6. Conclusion. The enactive account of addiction contrasts sharply with cur- rent models that conceive of addiction as “neural hijacking” or as a “brain disease.” In their place, the enactive account of addiction grounds central concepts (such as embodiment, sense-making, and interaction processes) in the autonomous organization of IWEA and in their value-laden, meaning- ful engagements with their environment. Distinct from approaches that begin with basic mechanisms and study dysfunctions in those mechanisms as a way to understand shared symptoms, the enactive account of addiction aims for a comprehensive explanation of addiction that espouses a complex, nonlinear relationship among its component parts. Most importantly, the enactive ac- count of addiction provides researchers with a framework for understanding addiction that rests not on pathological processes but rather on identifying the humanity in the set of behaviors associated with people identified with this label. The promise of an enactive approach comes from its ability to emphasize both the bodily aspects and experiential qualities of addiction in a com- 1032 NICHOLAS ZAUTRA prehensive model. An enactive approach may “be explicitly adopted to ex- plore whether and how experience and neurophysiological processes corre- late” and emphasize “the complexity of the mutual relations of brain, body, and world . . . , [which can] provide reasons within psychopathology as to why [addiction] should not be reduced to neurochemical impairments,” and “why alternative forms of treatment such as bodily practices [e.g., yoga, mindfulness meditation] should be considered equivalent to drug-based ther- apy” (Colombetti 2013, 24). In conclusion, it is essential to undertake an embodied analysis of ad- diction. Such an analysis may be realized through an enactive account of addiction. An enactive approach entails (1) the study of recurrent sensorimotor- affective patterns of IWEA (i.e., differences in embodiment and sense- making), (2) measurement of the interaction dynamics between IWEA and their environment and/or other agents using dynamical systems tools and their relation to neural activity, and (3) the “naturalization” of the experience of addiction. Such an approach may lead to the development of improved strategies for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of addictive behaviors. As with any new approach, this “does not replace the continued search for more effective interventions (e.g. better pharmacotherapies, better be- havioral support and treatment programs, more effective pricing policies),” but it highlights “the need to consider how [such interventions] work together to achieve the desired goals” (West 2013, 132). The enactive approach put forth here is one that prioritizes in a principled and coherent way the per- spective of individuals who experience addiction. REFERENCES Alcoholics Anonymous. 2001. Alcoholics Anonymous. 4th ed. New York: A. A. World Services. Berridge, Kent C., and Terry E. Robinson. 1995. “The Mind of an Addicted Brain: Neural Sensi- tization of Wanting versus Liking.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 4 (3): 71–76. Cawley, John, Sara Markowitz, and John Tauras. 2004. “Lighting Up and Slimming Down: The Effects of Body Weight and Cigarette Prices on Adolescent Smoking Initiation.” Journal of Health Economics 23 (2): 293–311. Chanon, Vicki W., Chandler R. Sours, and Charlotte A. Boettiger. 2010. “Attentional Bias toward Cigarette Cues in Active Smokers.” Psychopharmacology 212 (3): 309–20. Colombetti, Giovanna. 2013. “Psychopathology and the Enactive Mind.” In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry, ed. K. W. M. Fulford, Martin Davies, Richard Gipps, George Graham, John Sadler, Giovanni Stanghellini, and Tim Thornton, 1083–1102. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Crews, Fulton Timm, and Charlotte Ann Boettiger. 2009. “Impulsivity, Frontal Lobes and Risk for Addiction.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 93 (3): 237–47. De Jaegher, Hanne. 2013. “Embodiment and Sense-Making in Autism.” Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 7:15. De Jaegher, Hanne, and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2007. “Participatory Sense-Making.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6 (4): 485–507. Fidler, J. A., and R. West. 2011. “Enjoyment of Smoking and Urges to Smoke as Predictors of Attempts and Success of Attempts to Stop Smoking: A Longitudinal Study.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 115:30–34. EMBODIMENT, INTERACTION, AND EXPERIENCE 1033 Fuchs, Thomas. 2010. “Phenomenology and psychopathology.” In Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science, ed. S. Gallagher and D. Schmicking, 546–73. Dordrecht: Springer. Heyman, Gene M. 2009. Addiction: A Disorder of Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jellinek, Elvin Morton. 1960. The Disease Concept of Alcoholism. New Haven, CT: Hillhouse. Leshner, Alan I. 1997. “Addiction Is a Brain Disease, and It Matters.” Science 278 (5335): 45–47. Lovaas, Ivar, Crighton Newsom, and Carol Hickman. 1987. “Self-Stimulatory Behavior and Per- ceptual Reinforcement.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 20 (1): 45–68. MacKillop, James, Michael T. Amlung, Lauren R. Few, Lara A. Ray, Lawrence H. Sweet, and Marcus R. Munafò. 2011. “Delayed Reward Discounting and Addictive Behavior: A Meta- analysis.” Psychopharmacology 216 (3): 305–21. Matthews, Eric. 2010. “Explaining Addiction.” Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 17 (1): 23– 26. Maturana, Humberto R. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science; 42. Dordrecht: Springer. McCusker, Christopher G. 2001. “Cognitive Biases and Addiction: An Evolution in Theory and Method.” Addiction 96 (1): 47–56. McGann, Marek, Hanne De Jaegher, and Ezequiel Di Paolo. 2013. “Enaction and Psychology.” Review of General Psychology 17 (2): 203. NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse). 2014. “Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction.” http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction /preface. O’Connor, Lynn E., Jack W. Berry, Darryl Inaba, Joseph Weiss, and Andrea Morrison. 1994. “Shame, Guilt, and Depression in Men and Women in Recovery from Addiction.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 11 (6): 503–10. Pickard, Hanna. 2012. “The Purpose in Chronic Addiction.” AJOB Neuroscience 3 (2): 40–49. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, and Hanna Pickard. 2013. “What Is Addiction?” In Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Psychiatry, ed. K. W. M. Fulford, Martin Davies, Richard Gipps, George Graham, John Sadler, Giovanni Stanghellini, and Tim Thornton, 851–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, Evan. 2007. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Varela, F. I., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. West, R. 2013. EMCDDA INSIGHTS—Models of Addiction. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Wise, Roy A., and Michael A. Bozarth. 1987. “A Psychomotor Stimulant Theory of Addiction.” Psychological Review 94 (4): 469. Yalachkov, Yavor, Jochen Kaiser, and Marcus J. Naumer. 2010. “Sensory and Motor Aspects of Addiction.” Behavioural Brain Research 207 (2): 215–22. 1034 NICHOLAS ZAUTRA