Cited by 298Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 174 of the 176 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 135 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Addiction, adolescence, and the integration of control and motivation

Open access
Gladwin, Thomas E., Figner, Bernd, Crone, Eveline A., Wiers, Reinout W.·2011·Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

The likelihood of initiating addictive behaviors is higher during adolescence than during any other developmental period. The differential developmental trajectories of brain regions involved in motivation and control processes may lead to adolescents' increased risk taking in general, which may be exacerbated by the neural consequences of drug use. Neuroimaging studies suggest that increased risk-taking behavior in adolescence is related to an imbalance between prefrontal cortical regions, associated with executive functions, and subcortical brain regions related to affect and motivation. Dual-process models of addictive behaviors are similarly concerned with difficulties in controlling abnormally strong motivational processes. We acknowledge concerns raised about dual-process models, but argue that they can be addressed by carefully considering levels of description: motivational processes and top-down biasing can be understood as intertwined, co-developing components of more versus less reflective states of processing. We illustrate this with a model that further emphasizes temporal dynamics. Finally, behavioral interventions for addiction are discussed. Insights in the development of control and motivation may help to better understand - and more efficiently intervene in - vulnerabilities involving control and motivation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.06.008

Cites

174 of 174 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 135 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 72 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 41
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 28
61 of 61
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Outcomes provide positive or negative feedback to responses during reprocessing.

    “Outcomes are assumed to provide positive or negative feedback to responses during reprocessing.”
    “Outcomes are assumed to provide positive or negative feedback to responses during reprocessing.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    A given outcome is not uniquely coupled to a specific response, so the association is more transient and flexible than stimulus-response-outcome connections.

    “since a given outcome is not assumed to be uniquely coupled to a specific response, the association is considered to be more transient and flexible than the stimulus-response-outcome connections”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Stimuli activate associated responses, including top-down biasing, which in turn activate expected outcomes via stimulus-response-outcome associations.

    “Subfigure (A) Stimuli are proposed to activate associated responses, including generalized cognitive responses such as top-down biasing, which in turn activate expected outcomes via stimulus-response-outcome associations.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    A given outcome is not uniquely coupled to a specific response; the association is transient and flexible.

    “However, since a given outcome is not assumed to be uniquely coupled to a specific response, the association is considered to be more transient and flexible than the stimulus-response-outcome connections, as represented by the different line style (curved and shaded).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The time allowed for searching for responses and outcomes is determined by processes that defer response execution.

    “The time allowed for the search for responses and outcomes is determined by the set of processes that defer response execution, represented here by the stop sign and its inhibitory effect on response execution (circle-headed arrows).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Reflective processing exists as a pattern of interactions between lower-level elements, not as a single separable element.

    “Note that reflective processing (or, here synonymously, controlled processing) exists here as a pattern of interactions between elements at lower levels of description, rather than as any single element of the model separable from reinforced associations or affective-motivational processing, or identifiable with neural systems involved with top-down biasing.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Controlled processing is a dynamic set of interacting factors.

    “However, note that if controlled processing is indeed a dynamic set of interacting factors, then even small effects may have significant results; e.g., if participants learn to delay response selection even slightly, this may allow a qualitatively different set of responses to be selected and reinforced (Siegel, 1978).”
7 of 7

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 176 references

2 of the 176 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 298

Metadata

Authors
Gladwin, T. E., Figner, B., Crone, E. A., & Wiers, R. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Gladwin, Thomas E.
Venue
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
364-376
ISSN
1878-9293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138821128
Cited by
296
References
176
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 16
FWCI
1.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Netherlands National Science Foundation (N.W.O.)
  • FMG-UvA Research Priority Grant on Affect-Regulation
  • US National Science Foundation (SES-0922743)
  • NWO VIDI
  • ERC
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
adolescent addiction, motivation, cognitive control, executive function, prefrontal cortex, subcortical structures, risk-taking, dual-process models, levels of description, temporal dynamics, developmental trajectories
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Brain, Decision Making, Humans, Motivation, Risk-Taking, Behavior, Addictive

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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