ArticleFrontiers in psychology2019
Conceptualizations of Addiction and Moral Responsibility.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenging the prescientific frameworks of criminal justice: neurobiology and criminolytic interventions in the legalome era.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- The Big Minority View: Do Prescientific Beliefs Underpin Criminal Justice Cruelty, and Is the Public Health Quarantine Model a Remedy?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Stigmatisation of gambling disorder in social media: a tailored deep learning approach for YouTube comments.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Examining the relationship between public stigma, models of addiction, and addictive disorders.Addiction research & theory · 2025Article
- A survey of international addiction researchers' views on implications of brain-based explanations of addiction and the responsibility of affected persons.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2024Article
- Narrative identity in addictive disorders: a conceptual review.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Application of optogenetics and in vivo imaging approaches for elucidating the neurobiology of addiction.Molecular psychiatry · 2022Review
- Using Trauma Informed Principles in Health Communication: Improving Faith/Science/Clinical Collaboration to Address Addiction.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study explored the connection between conceptualizations of addiction and lay people's inferences about moral responsibility. In Study 1, we investigated how natural variations in people's views of addiction were related to judgments of responsibility in a nationwide sample of Norwegian adults. In Study 2, respondents recruited from Mechanical Turk were asked to consider different conceptualizations of addiction and report on how these would affect their judgments of moral responsibility. In Study 3, we tested whether manipulating conceptualizations through textual information and through the framing of addiction in terms of states versus behavior could influence participants' judgments of moral responsibility. We found that attributions of moral responsibility were lower when addiction was connected to diseases and disorders, such as dysfunctional processes in the brain, and greater when addiction was associated with agency and addictive behaviors. In conclusion, different conceptualizations of addiction imply different moral judgments, and conceptualizations are malleable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.