Abstract
Heinz et al. (2024) recently criticised habit/compulsion theory of human addiction but nevertheless concluded that 'habit formation plays a significant role in drug addiction'. To challenge this causal claim, the current article develops four further methodological criticisms, that publications supporting the habit/compulsion account of human addiction: (1) under-report contradictory observations; (2) exaggerate the process purity of positive observations; (3) under-emphasise the low quality of epidemiological support for a causal hypothesis; (4) recapitulate the social injustice of racial intelligence era by prematurely attributing lower task performance to drug user group membership (endophenotype) without having adequately tested social, psychological, economic and environmental inequalities. Methodological guidelines are recommended to address each concern, which should raise evidence standards, incorporate social justice and improve accuracy of estimating any specific effect of addiction history on task performance. Given that construing drug users as intellectually impaired could promote stigma and reduce their recovery potential, it is recommended that scientific discourse about habit/compulsive endophenotypes underpinning addiction is avoided until these higher evidence standards are met.