Cited by 2,347Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: the case for incentive salience

Berridge, Kent C.·2007·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Introduction Debate continues over the precise causal contribution made by mesolimbic dopamine systems to reward. There are three competing explanatory categories: 'liking', learning, and 'wanting'. Does dopamine mostly mediate the hedonic impact of reward ('liking')? Does it instead mediate learned predictions of future reward, prediction error teaching signals and stamp in associative links (learning)? Or does dopamine motivate the pursuit of rewards by attributing incentive salience to reward-related stimuli ('wanting')? Each hypothesis is evaluated here, and it is suggested that the incentive salience or 'wanting' hypothesis of dopamine function may be consistent with more evidence than either learning or 'liking'. In brief, recent evidence indicates that dopamine is neither necessary nor sufficient to mediate changes in hedonic 'liking' for sensory pleasures. Other recent evidence indicates that dopamine is not needed for new learning, and not sufficient to directly mediate learning by causing teaching or prediction signals. By contrast, growing evidence indicates that dopamine does contribute causally to incentive salience. Dopamine appears necessary for normal 'wanting', and dopamine activation can be sufficient to enhance cue-triggered incentive salience. Drugs of abuse that promote dopamine signals short circuit and sensitize dynamic mesolimbic mechanisms that evolved to attribute incentive salience to rewards. Such drugs interact with incentive salience integrations…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-006-0578-x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berridge, K. C.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Berridge, Kent C.
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2006-10-27
Volume
191
Issue
3
Pages
391-431
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W2163805252
Cited by
2,347
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 135 · 2019: 161 · 2018: 108 · 2017: 120 · 2016: 158 · 2015: 144 · 2014: 144 · 2013: 177 · 2012: 174
FWCI
9.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-63649, R01MH063649)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA017752, DA-017752, DA015188, R01DA015188)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
dopamine, reward, incentive salience, wanting, liking, learning, mesolimbic dopamine system, prediction error, classical conditioning, drugs of abuse, addiction, compulsive behavior, hedonic pleasure
MeSH terms
Animals, Appetitive Behavior, Association Learning, Dopamine, Humans, Limbic System, Motivation, Nucleus Accumbens, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Prosencephalon, Behavior, Addictive, Neurotransmitter Agents

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review