| Course | PAC 110 Addiction Theories |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Personal theory integration paper |
| Length | About 1,101 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PAC 110 Module 8
Many Theories, One Practice: Building a Personal Framework for Addiction Work From Biology, Learning, Meaning and Relationship
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PAC 110: Addiction Theories
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Many Theories, One Practice: Building a Personal Framework for Addiction Work From Biology, Learning, Meaning and Relationship
When I began this course, I believed, without quite saying it, that addiction was mostly a matter of willpower. My uncle drank heavily for most of my childhood, and the adults around me described him as someone who could stop if he cared enough about his family. Over this term, while interning at Millbrook, the fictional Pennsylvania clinic that appears throughout these papers, I studied theories that challenged that belief from every direction. This paper describes the framework I now bring to addiction practice and how my assumptions changed. My uncle is a composite drawn from more than one family, the clients mentioned are composites and the research is real.
An Organizing Model
Engel (1977) argued that the medical model of his time, which explained illness entirely through biological processes, was too narrow. He proposed a biopsychosocial model in which illness is understood at biological, psychological and social levels together, with each level affecting the others. A person's illness, in his account, cannot be understood without the person's experience of it and the social context in which it occurs. The model fits addiction especially well, because every theory in this course explains addiction at one or more of these levels. Using Engel's model as my framework lets me hold the theories together without choosing one as the truth.
Where Each Theory Fits
| Theory | Level | What it explains | What it misses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moral model | Psychological, in its own terms | That people can choose to change | Why change is so hard; it breeds shame |
| Disease and genetic theories | Biological | Family patterns, persistence, craving | Why most at-risk people never develop addiction |
| Learning theories | Biological and psychological | Cues, craving, relapse after triggers | Meaning, values and choice |
| Cognitive theories | Psychological | Expectancies and beliefs that guide use | Feelings and history beneath the beliefs |
| Psychodynamic theories | Psychological | What substances relieve | Practical skills for the next hard moment |
| Social and environmental theories | Social | Why settings and networks matter | Individual differences within settings |
| Change and motivation theories | Psychological and relational | How people resolve ambivalence | The structures that make change possible |
The Relationship at the Center
The theories explain addiction, but practice happens in relationships. Norcross and Wampold (2011) summarized the conclusions of a task force that reviewed research on the therapy relationship. They concluded that several elements were demonstrably effective, including the alliance between client and therapist, empathy and collecting client feedback on progress and the relationship, along with cohesion in group therapy. Other elements, such as positive regard, genuineness and repairing ruptures in the alliance, were judged probably effective. They also recommended that therapists adapt the relationship to the individual client, including the client's culture, preferences and readiness for change. This research changed how I think about my role. Whatever theory guides an intervention, it works through a relationship, and building that relationship is a skill I can practice and measure.
Where the Theories Conflict
Integration does not mean the theories always agree. The disease model and Lewis's learning account, which I studied in the second module, describe the same brain changes in opposite terms, and the twelve-step tradition's emphasis on powerlessness sits uneasily beside motivational interviewing's emphasis on the client's own autonomy. I do not think I need to settle these disputes to practice well. When a client finds strength in the idea of a disease he did not choose, I can respect that framing; when another client finds it hopeless, I can offer the language of learning and change instead. The conflict between theories gives me more than one honest way to describe a person's situation, and the client's response tells me which description helps.
Language and My Own Assumptions
Kelly and Westerhoff (2010) gave mental health professionals a short vignette about a man in trouble with the courts and varied a single phrase. In one version he was described as a substance abuser; in the other, as having a substance use disorder. Clinicians who read the substance abuser version judged him more personally culpable and were more likely to agree that punitive measures should be taken. A single word changed the judgments of trained professionals.
The study made me look at my own language. In my first weeks at Millbrook, I wrote case notes calling clients addicts, and I heard my uncle's story in that word. I now use person-first language, not because it is polite but because the evidence shows that words shape judgment, including mine.
Testing the Framework With a Case
In my internship I worked with a client I will call Maria, forty-five, who drank heavily after her divorce. My earlier self would have seen a woman who needed to try harder. My framework now asks different questions. Biologically, her father drank and her own drinking had escalated to daily use with morning shakiness, so withdrawal needed medical attention. Psychologically, she expected wine to quiet her loneliness, and she described the evenings as unbearable. Socially, she had lost friends in the divorce and lived alone in a new town. In terms of change, she was ambivalent, saying both that she drank too much and that it was the only thing that helped. The framework pointed to a referral for withdrawal management, motivational conversations, work on coping with evenings and help rebuilding connections, all within a relationship in which she felt understood rather than judged.
What Changed and What I Will Work On
My view of my uncle has changed. I now see a man with a family history, years of learned patterns, losses he never spoke of and a community where heavy drinking was normal. He was not simply weak. I still believe people can change, but I no longer believe change is only a matter of will, and I understand better why it is so hard.
I am setting three goals for my practice. First, I will measure the alliance with clients using a brief session rating scale and discuss the results with my supervisor. Second, I will review my case notes monthly for stigmatizing language. Third, I will continue training in motivational interviewing, since ambivalence was present in nearly every client I met.
Conclusion
This course gave me many theories, each explaining part of addiction. Engel's biopsychosocial model lets me hold them together, Norcross and Wampold show that the relationship carries the work and Kelly and Westerhoff show that even my words affect how I judge the people I serve. My framework is not finished, but it begins from a more accurate and more respectful understanding of addiction than the one I brought with me.
References
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460
Kelly, J. F., & Westerhoff, C. M. (2010). Does it matter how we refer to individuals with substance-related conditions? A randomized study of two commonly used terms. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21(3), 202-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.10.010
Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships: Research conclusions and clinical practices. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 98-102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022161
PAC 110 Module 8 instructions, in plain terms
The closing module of PAC 110 typically asks students to pull the semester together: to say which theories they will carry into practice, how those theories fit together and how their own assumptions have changed. Rely on the Module 8 wording posted in your Aspen course; the writer's details here are invented. Use an organizing model so the integration is more than a list. Place each major theory in that model and say what it contributes. Include the helping relationship, since research shows it matters across approaches. Examine your own assumptions honestly, including language. Show the framework working with a case. End with concrete next steps for your growth, and cite every source in APA 7. Reflective passages can use I; passages reporting research read better in the third person.
Inside the PAC 110 Module 8 example
The writer begins by admitting that they arrived believing addiction was mostly a matter of willpower, shaped by an uncle's drinking. Engel's Science article on the biopsychosocial model gives the framework three levels. A seven-row table places the moral, disease, genetic, learning, cognitive, psychodynamic, social and change theories, noting what each explains and its limits. Norcross and Wampold's Psychotherapy article supplies the relationship elements with the strongest evidence: alliance, empathy and collecting client feedback. Kelly and Westerhoff's International Journal of Drug Policy experiment shows how a single label shifts clinicians' judgments. A case from the internship tests the framework, and the paper closes with three growth goals the writer can check in supervision.
Reading the PAC 110 Module 8 grading rubric
Integration papers are judged on whether the theories are genuinely combined, whether each is represented accurately and whether the reflection is honest and specific. This example uses the biopsychosocial model to organize the theories, so integration has a structure. The table shows each theory's contribution and limits in a sentence, demonstrating command of the whole course. Adding the relationship research makes the framework practical, and the language experiment turns reflection toward something the writer can change immediately. The case shows the framework working. The growth goals are concrete, which reflective papers often lack, and the candor about the writer's starting assumptions makes the change believable. Each theory is cited where it is used.
PAC 110 Module 8 help: mistakes that cost marks
Integration papers often become summaries of each theory with a final sentence saying all are useful. Use an organizing model and show how the theories fit together, including where they conflict. Another weakness is vague reflection; name specific assumptions you held and what changed them. Include the helping relationship and its evidence. Examine your language, since words like addict and abuser carry judgments. Test the framework on a case. Set concrete goals rather than promising to keep learning. Keep personal disclosure relevant to practice and appropriate for an academic paper. Finally, acknowledge what you still do not know or are unsure about; honest uncertainty reads better than false confidence. Ask a supervisor or classmate whether your framework sounds like you.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PAC 110 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PAC 110 Module 1: Models of Addiction Across History
- PAC 110 Module 2: Biological and Genetic Theories
- PAC 110 Module 3: Learning and Behavioral Theories
- PAC 110 Module 4: Cognitive and Psychodynamic Approaches
- PAC 110 Module 5: Social and Environmental Theories
- PAC 110 Module 6: Theories of Change and Motivation
- PAC 110 Module 7: Systems of Psychotherapy in Addiction Practice
- PAC 102 Module 6: Recovery High Schools
- PAC 120 Module 5: Empathic Self-Disclosure and Confrontation
- PAC 415 Module 4: Justice and Access to Treatment
- SBS 200 Module 7: Late Adulthood
PAC 110 Module 8 questions, answered
What does PAC 110 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's PAC 110 ends with integrating theory into personal practice, so a reflective paper combining the course's theories into your own framework is typical. Confirm with your Module 8 prompt.
What is the biopsychosocial model?
Engel's model holds that illness must be understood at biological, psychological and social levels together, rather than through biology alone.
Which parts of the therapy relationship matter most?
Norcross and Wampold concluded that the alliance, empathy and collecting client feedback are demonstrably effective, among other elements.
Where can I find a free PAC 110 Module 8 sample paper?
Here, at no charge: a personal framework that integrates addiction theories through the biopsychosocial model, with a theory table and reflection.
Does it matter whether we say substance abuser?
Yes. Kelly and Westerhoff found clinicians judged a person described as a substance abuser as more blameworthy than one described as having a substance use disorder.