Are you feeling Restless, Irritable, and Discontent?

Abstract

Addiction is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that has been described variously as a disease, disorder, syndrome, obsessive-compulsive behaviour, learned behaviour, or spiritual malady. Modern scientific understanding emphasises addiction as a chronic brain disorder shaped by neurobiological changes, learning, and social context. This article examines each conceptualisation and presents an integrated definition that aligns with current neuroscience, psychological, and public health evidence.

Conceptualising Addiction: Labels and Their Accuracy

No single label fully captures addiction’s complexity; each highlights certain truths while overlooking others.

Disease

From a medical perspective, disease is the closest match. Addiction involves persistent neurobiological changes in reward, stress, and self-control circuits, increases relapse risk over years, and shows substantial genetic vulnerability (~50–60%) (NIDA, 2018; Heilig et al., 2021). Treatments improve outcomes but rarely “cure” the condition. This framing is used by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), NIDA, WHO ICD-11, and DSM-5-TR (as “Substance Use Disorder”) (NIDA, 2018).

Disorder

Disorder is also scientifically accurate and slightly less medicalised. DSM-5’s “Substance Use Disorder” captures behavioural, psychological, and biological criteria and recognises functioning and harm rather than framing addiction strictly as a lifelong disease (Heather, n.d.; Heilig et al., 2021).

Syndrome

Addiction may be described as a syndrome because it is a cluster of symptoms with behavioural and physiological manifestations, without a single causative factor. However, the term is too generic for practical use outside clinical texts (Blithikioti et al., 2025).

Obsessive and Compulsive Learned Behaviour

Addiction involves learning, habit formation, and compulsion through reinforcement of rewarding behaviours (Hyman, 2005; Hausotter, 2013). Yet describing it solely as learned behaviour ignores genetic predisposition, neuroadaptation, withdrawal, and social factors.

Spiritual Malady

Some mutual-aid traditions characterise addiction as a spiritual malady. While this may be meaningful for individuals, it is not scientifically explanatory: addiction can be adequately explained via biological, psychological, and social mechanisms (Lewis, 2017).

Modern Integrative Definition

The most accurate contemporary description of addiction is:
“A chronic, relapsing disorder of brain circuits involved in reward, stress, and self-control, shaped by learning, environment, and social context”.

This definition encompasses:

• Disease/disorder: medical accuracy
• Learned behaviour and compulsion: neuroscience and behavioural accuracy
• Social determinants: public health relevance
• Flexibility for personal or spiritual interpretations

In short, addiction is best understood as a bio-psycho-social condition that is treatable and sometimes reversible, rather than a deterministic, lifelong curse.

Neurobiology: Why Addiction Is Considered a Brain Disorder

Repeated substance use alters structural and functional brain circuits involved in reward, stress, motivation, memory, and self-control (Nwonu et al., 2022; NIDA, 2018). These changes can persist long after use stops, explaining why addiction is more than a matter of “bad habits” or weak will (NIDA, 2025).

Chronicity and Relapse

Addiction is often chronic and relapsing. Even after long periods of abstinence, cues and stressors can trigger relapse (Meurk et al., 2014; SAMHSA, 2023). Key regions implicated include the basal ganglia (habit formation), extended amygdala (stress), and prefrontal cortex (decision-making) (Kirby et al., 2024). Nevertheless, many individuals achieve stable remission, highlighting heterogeneity in clinical outcomes (Heilig et al., 2021).

Learning, Memory, and Habit Formation

Addiction exploits neural mechanisms of learning and memory: rewarding behaviours are repeated and consolidated into habits, with cues triggering compulsive responses even when the substance’s reward diminishes (Hausotter, 2013; Lewis, 2017). This intertwines biological disorder and learned behaviour.

Critiques and Limitations

Some scientists caution that framing addiction strictly as a brain disease is simplistic:

• Brain changes may resemble those from other motivated behaviours (Lewis, 2017).
• Many recover without formal treatment (Heilig et al., 2021).
• Social, environmental, and psychological factors are crucial to understanding addiction (Blithikioti et al., 2025).

Thus, while the disease model is powerful, it does not fully represent addiction’s heterogeneity or socio-psychological dimensions.

Implications for Treatment

Addiction is treatable, not simply curable. Interventions combining pharmacological and behavioural approaches, alongside social support, can foster long-term recovery (Liu & Li, 2018; Heilig et al., 2021). Like other chronic conditions, management — rather than elimination — is often the realistic goal (NIDA, 2018). Neural circuits can gradually readjust, particularly when environmental and personal factors support recovery.

Conclusion

Addiction is a learned, compulsive brain disorder with chronic potential, shaped by neurobiological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. Recognising addiction as both a disorder and a behavioural learning condition avoids extremes: it is neither an unchangeable fate nor merely a moral failing. This integrated perspective supports nuanced understanding, compassionate care, and effective treatment strategies.

References

Blithikioti, C., Fried, E. I., Albanese, E., Field, M., & Cristea, I. A. (2025). Reevaluating the brain disease model of addiction. The Lancet Psychiatry, 12(6), 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(25)00060-4

Hausotter, W. (2013). Neuroscience and understanding addiction. Addiction Technology Transfer Center (ATTC) Network. https://attcnetwork.org/neuroscience-and-understanding-addiction

Heather, N. (n.d.). What’s wrong with the brain disease model of addiction (BDMA)? Addiction Theory Network. https://addictiontheorynetwork.org/brain-disease-model-of-addiction

Heilig, M., MacKillop, J., Martinez, D., Rehm, J., Leggio, L., & Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J. (2021). Addiction as a brain disease revised: Why it still matters, and the need for consilience. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(10), 1715–1723. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-00950-y

Hyman, S. E. (2005). Addiction: A disease of learning and memory. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(8), 1414–1422. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.8.1414

Kirby, E. D., Glenn, M. J., Sandstrom, N. J., & Williams, C. L. (2024). Neurobiology of addiction (Section 14.5). In Introduction to Behavioral Neuroscience. OpenStax. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/…/14.05:_Neurobiology_of_Addiction

Leshner, A. I. (1997). Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science, 278(5335), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5335.45

Lewis, M. (2017). Addiction and the brain: Development, not disease. Neuroethics, 10(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9293-4

Liu, J. F., & Li, J. X. (2018). Drug addiction: A curable mental disorder? Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, 39(12), 1823–1829. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41401-018-0180-x

Meurk, C., Carter, A., Partridge, B., Lucke, J., & Hall, W. (2014). How is acceptance of the brain disease model of addiction related to Australians’ attitudes towards addicted individuals and treatments for addiction? BMC Psychiatry, 14, 373. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0373-x

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of addiction (Rev. ed.). https://irp.nida.nih.gov/…/NIDA_DrugsBrainsAddiction

Nwonu, C. N. S., Nwonu, P. C., & Ude, R. A. (2022). Neurobiological underpinnings in drug addiction. West African Journal of Medicine, 39(6), 874–884. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36063103

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2023). What is substance use disorder? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.samhsa.gov/substance-use/what-is-sud

All human beings experience anger at least occasionally. It’s a natural emotion helping us recognise that we or someone or something we care about has been violated or treated badly. When we feel threatened or our goals are thwarted, anger is a coping mechanism that enables us to act decisively, especially in situations where there is little time to reason things out. It can motivate problem-solving, goal-achievement, and the removing of threats. It serves a protective function and is not always a problem (Lowth, 2018; Stosny, 2020; Zega, 2009).

But anger is a complex emotion, and all too often manifests maladaptively in clients’ lives, when they perceive excessive need for protection, protect the “wrong” things, or use anger to thwart their longer-term best interests. The result is problem anger.

Perhaps because it is so multi-faceted, misperceptions about anger abound, and the question arises: how shall we regard anger? How do we advise the client to think about it? Folk wisdom often would say that the best thing to do is just let it all out, but is it? Clients complain that they cannot control it, that the tendency to be easily angered is inherited, but again, is there evidence for that? Here are common myths people tend to hold about anger, and factual statements following them that you can use to clarify for the client why learning to deal with problem anger is time well spent.

Myth 1: “Anger is inherited.”

This is the client that may try to claim that their father was short-tempered and they have inherited that trait from him, so there is nothing they can do. Such a stance implies an attitude that the expression of anger is a fixed, unalterable set of behaviours. Research shows, however, that expression of anger is learned, so if we have – say, through exposure to aggressive influential others, such as parents – learned to be violent in our expressions, we can also learn healthier, more appropriate, pro-social ways of dealing with it.

Myth 2: “Anger and aggression are the same thing.”

Fact: Nope. Anger is a felt emotional state. Aggression is a behaviour, sometimes carried out in response to anger, but not the same as it. A person can be angry, yet use healthy methods of expression without resorting to violence, threats, or other aggression. Anger does not always lead to aggression. In fact, some experts claim that most daily anger is not followed by aggression. When it does result in aggression the “I3 Model” (pronounced “I cubed”) is deemed responsible. This suggests that aggression emerges as a function of three interacting factors, which all begin with “I”:

Instigation, an event which instils an urge to aggress as a result of, say, being addressed rudely or learning that one’s partner has had an affair (or a relatively “minor” event, such as being cut off in traffic);

Impellance, meaning a force that increases the urge to act in response to an instigating stimulus. These could be strong hormonal releases or a belief system which says that the instigating event should not be tolerated, or even a sociocultural norm which demands that instigating stimuli be responded to immediately and harshly (such as punching back someone who has hit you);

Inhibition, referring to forces that typically work to counter aggression, such as cultural norms, awareness of negative consequences, or perspective-taking or empathy (Kassinove & Tafrate, 2019).

Myth 3: “Other people make me angry.”

Fact: How often in common parlance do we say things like, “He made me so angry!” or “You make me so mad I could kill you!”? Even though we may occasionally speak about people causing emotions other than anger, it is far more frequent to hear such statements in regard to anger. We can choose whether or not we let someone else’s behaviour make us happy, sad, or something else, but we often think and talk about it as if anger is caused directly by others. With the undiscerning listener, an angry person thus gets to use anger as an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. Ultimately, it is not the other person’s behaviour that causes our anger, and in fact, it’s not even their intention, though that may influence our behaviour. Being precise, we must acknowledge that it is our interpretation of their intention, expressed in their behaviour/language, which is causative.

Myth 4: “I shouldn’t hold anger in; it’s better to let it out” (either by venting or catharsis).

Fact: If by “holding it in” someone means that they suppress anger, it’s true; ignoring it won’t make it go away and squashing it down is not a healthy choice. Neither, however, is venting. Blowing up in an aggressive tirade only fuels the fire, reinforcing the problem anger. Ditto the use of pillow-punching or other means of catharsis; this may come as a surprise to therapists trained a few years ago, when catharsis was an anger management technique in good standing. Now researchers have found that, even though we feel better in the moment after hitting something, our brain notices, subtly changing its wiring. Then the next time we are angry it softly whispers, “Hit something; you’ll feel better”. The time after that, the wiring is stronger in the brain towards a hitting catharsis, and the angry-brain-voice speaks a little louder. Continuing in this vein means that eventually, we could decide to hit something more alive than a pillow. Rather than either angry venting or catharsis is the use of skills to manage the angry impulse.

Myth 5: “Anger, aggression, and intimidation help me to earn respect and get what I want.”

Fact: People may be afraid of a bully, but they don’t respect those who cannot control themselves or deal with opposing viewpoints. Communicating respectfully is a far superior way to get (most) people to listen and accommodate one’s needs. While the momentary power that comes with successful intimidation may feel heady in the moment, it does not help build the healthy relationships that most people coming to counselling yearn to have.

Myth 6: Anger affects only a certain category of people.

Fact: Anger is a universal emotion that affects everyone. It does not discriminate against people of any particular age, nationality, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education, or religion. It is tempting for some people in the educated middle classes to believe that anger is more prevalent among the poor, or those who are less educated or lacking in social skills. Reality does not bear this out, although the expressions of anger do vary among different social groups. Remember, anger is just an emotion, one which does not make people “good” or “bad” for having it.

Myth 7: “I can’t help myself. Anger isn’t something you can control.”

We don’t always get to control the situations of our lives, and some of them may trigger our anger. In fact, it’s also agreed by experts that we don’t (in the short-term) control whether we have angry feelings or not; they just come – although there are longer-term ways to work with clients that see them less easily provoked, and therefore less prone to have the experience of anger. What we do have the short-term choice to control is how we express that anger. Continuing in sessions with you (the therapist) for the purpose of learning how to better handle anger means having more choices of response, even in highly provocative situations.

Myth 8: “When I’m angry I will say what I really mean.”

Fact: This is rarely true. Uncontrolled angry expressions are more about gaining control of or hurting others, not saying what a person’s deepest truth is. 

Myth 9: “By not saying what I’m thinking in the moment, I’m being dishonest and will be even angrier later.”

Fact: There is a strong pull to “speak our mind” when angry. But it is at this time that a person’s judgment is most severely flawed. To speak from anger is to allow the impulsive part of the brain to overrule the rational part. Better for relationships, career, and pretty much everything else to wait until that reasoning part can regain control.

Myth 10: “Men are angrier than women.”

Fact: The sexes experience the same amount of anger, says research; they just express it differently. Men often use aggressive tactics and expressions, whereas women (often constrained culturally) more frequently choose indirect means of expression, such as found in passive-aggressive tactics. This could mean getting back at someone by talking negatively about them or cutting them out of their lives (categories adapted from: Therapist Aid LLC, 2016; Segal & Smith, 2018; Morin, 2015; Morrow, n.d.; Better Relationships, 2021; Gallagher, 2001).

Thought for reflection

Anger has many facets to it, and we have introduced some information here that may seem either startling or counterintuitive. As you think back over the myths we just debunked, which aspect has surprised you the most? Do you have any sense of why that might be? One woman, for example, was very surprised to hear that “men are angrier than women” was only considered a myth; it turned out that in her family, women “never got angry” (we hypothesise that perhaps they were socialised to not show anger), and the men got angry all the time (perhaps more allowed in that woman’s family/culture). In what ways, if at all, might your views about anger have shaped how you behave? How you respond to others? 

And here’s the ultimate question if you share this material with a client: what are their responses to the above questions? How might hearing these myths help them seek more adaptive ways to deal with problem anger? 

The upcoming Mental Health Academy course, “Helping Clients Deal with Problem Anger” draws from numerous therapies and neuroscience to help clinicians and clients collaboratively create a program to address each client’s unique challenges with this universal human emotion.

References:

1. Better Relationships. (2021). Common myths about anger. Anglicare Southern Queensland. Retrieved on 13 April, 2021, from: Website.
2. Gallagher, E. (2001). Anger. eddiegallagher.com.au. Retrieved on 13 April, 2021, from: Website.
3. Kassinove, H., & Tafrate, R.C. (2019). The practitioner’s guide to anger management: Customizable interventions, treatments, and tools for clients with problem anger. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc. 
4. Lowth, M. (2018). Anger management. Patient. Retrieved on 7 April, 2021, from: Website.
5. Morin, A. (2015). 7 myths about anger and why they’re wrong. Psychology Today. Retrieved on 13 April, 2021, from: Website.
6. Morrow, A. (n.d.). Anger myths. Stress and Anger Management Institute. Retrieved on 13 April, 2021, from: Website.
7. Segal, J., & Smith, M. (2018). Anger management: Tips and techniques for getting anger under control. Helpguide.org. Retrieved on 9 April, 2021, from: Website.    
8. Stosny, S. (2020). Beyond anger management. Psychology Today. Retrieved on 9 April, 2021, from: Website.
9. Therapist Aid, LLC. (2016). Anger warning signs. Therapist Aid LLC. Retrieved on 7 April, 2021, from: Website.
10. Zega, K. (2009). Holistic Psychotherapy (159). Retrieved on 7 April, 2021, from: Website.

Multiple theorists and researchers since Freud have independently converged on the same concept of psychological defences because of the potential utility of the concept.

Alfred Adler, known for emphasising the importance of overcoming feelings of inferiority and gaining a sense of belonging in order to achieve success and happiness, developed a similar idea which he called psychological “safeguarding strategies.”

Karen Horney, who believed that environment and social upbringing, rather than intrinsic factors, largely lead to neurosis, described “protective strategies” used by children of abusive or neglectful parents.

Leon Festinger developed the well-known concept of “cognitive dissonance,” proposing that inconsistency among beliefs or behaviours causes an uncomfortable psychological tension leading people to change one of the inconsistent elements to reduce the dissonance (or to add consonant elements to restore consonance).

Carl Rogers, who was one of the founders of humanistic psychology, known especially for his person-centred psychotherapy, discussed the process of defence as “denial and perceptual distortion”.

Albert Bandura, known for ground-breaking research on learning via observation and social modelling, and the development of social learning theory, conceptualized defences as “self-exoneration mechanisms.”

The influential psychiatrist George Vaillant organized defences on a scale of immature to mature, defining them as “unconscious homeostatic mechanisms that reduce the disorganizing effects of sudden stress.”

Current discussions of coping mechanisms and emotion regulation embody the idea of defences as well. Is a defence mechanism merely a learned internal process manifested in our behaviour to protect us – or our ego – from pain? Is a defence mechanism a merely a coping mechanism to resolve internal stress?

Whatever you believe the answers to be, we can cultivate, learn, and practice adaptive, context-specific and generalised coping strategies that will aid self-development that can improve our health, relationships, self-esteem, workplace performance, and stress management skills.