Cited by 1,507Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 143 of the 143 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 226 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive–sensitization view

Open access
Robinson, Terry E., Berridge, Kent C.·2000·Addiction

Abstract

The question of addiction specifically concerns (1), the process by which drug‐taking behavior, in certain individuals, evolves into compulsive patterns of drug‐seeking and drug‐taking behavior that take place at the expense of most other activities and (2), the inability to cease drug‐taking; the problem of relapse. In this paper current biopsychological views of addiction are critically evaluated in light of the “incentivesensitization theory of addiction”, which we first proposed in 1993, and new developments in research are incorporated. We argue that traditional negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement, and hedonic accounts of addiction are neither necessary nor sufficient to account for compulsive patterns of drug‐seeking and drug‐taking behavior. Four major tenets of the incentive‐sensitization view are discussed. These are: (1) Potentially addictive drugs share the ability to produce long‐lasting adaptations in neural systems. (2) The brain systems that are changed include those normally involved in the process of incentive motivation and reward. (3) The critical neuroadaptations for addiction render these brain reward systems hypersensitive (“sensitized”) to drugs and drug‐associated stimuli. (4) The brain systems that are sensitized do not mediate the pleasurable or euphoric effects of drugs (drug “liking”), but instead they mediate a subcomponent of reward we have termed incentive salience (drug “wanting”). We also discuss the role that mesolimbic dopamine systems play in reward, evidence that neural sensitization happens in humans, and the implications of incentive‐sensitization for the development of therapies in the treatment of addiction.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Robinson and Berridge argue that addiction is best explained not by negative reinforcement (withdrawal avoidance) or by drug pleasure ("liking"), but by drug-induced neural sensitization of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system that amplifies incentive salience — drug "wanting" — for drugs and drug-associated stimuli. They review animal and human evidence for sensitization and draw implications for pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.

Key findings

  • Negative reinforcement, behaviorist positive reinforcement, and hedonic ("drug pleasure") accounts are argued to be "neither necessary nor sufficient" to explain compulsive drug-seeking and drug-taking; evidence cited includes poor correlation between subjective effects and drug-taking (e.g. pergolide decreased cocaine's subjective "high"/"stimulated" ratings and increased "I want cocaine" ratings while leaving self-administration unchanged; a 50% decrease in certain cocaine subjective effects by ABT-431 "did not shift cocaine self-administration"; people work for doses of morphine or cocaine producing no reported subjective effects).
  • Four tenets of incentive-sensitization: addictive drugs produce long-lasting neural adaptations; these include incentive motivation/reward systems; the critical neuroadaptations render these systems hypersensitive ("sensitized"); and the sensitized systems mediate incentive salience ("wanting"), not pleasure ("liking").
  • Sensitization is persistent and modulated by context: animals may remain hypersensitive for months or years; unsignaled i.v. amphetamine at 0.375–1.0 mg/kg fails to induce sensitization whereas the same doses do when signaled by a predictive environment, and higher doses induce sensitization regardless of environment.
  • Human evidence: Strakowski et al. found that a second 0.25 mg/kg d-amphetamine treatment (48 h apart) produced greater increases in activity/energy, mood, speech rate/amount and eyeblink rate than the first; with three treatments, activity/energy and eyeblink rate increased progressively while subjective drug liking did not increase. Imaging studies (e.g. Breiter et al.) found craving-correlated signal changes in nucleus accumbens, parahippocampal cortex and lateral prefrontal cortex, with a craving-correlated decrease in amygdala.

Methods

  • Theoretical/critical review, not an empirical study: the authors evaluate biopsychological models of addiction against the incentive-sensitization theory they first proposed in 1993 and incorporate subsequent research.
  • Evidence reviewed is drawn from animal studies (psychomotor sensitization, self-administration, conditioned place preference, reinstatement, in vitro and in vivo neurochemistry, dendritic morphology) and human studies (amphetamine challenge studies, psychosis phenomenology, fMRI/PET imaging of cocaine and heroin addicts, cue-reactivity studies).
  • No new data, sample, or statistical analysis are reported by the authors; findings are synthesized from cited primary studies.

Limitations

  • Stated: there has been very little research on whether sensitization occurs in human addicts, and human work is "fraught with technical limitations"; imaging results are difficult to interpret given the small number of studies, limitations of imaging techniques, and apparent discrepancies (including opposite directions of accumbens/caudate signal change across studies).
  • Stated: it is not yet known which neurobiological adaptations produced by repeated drug treatment are causally related to sensitization, and adequate tools to quantify the relevant neuroadaptations in the relevant human brain regions do not yet exist; the theory is presented as testable and falsifiable on these grounds.
  • Stated: it is unclear whether a single pharmacological agent could reverse the multiple neuroadaptations involved, particularly given that most human addicts are polysubstance abusers, and whether such an agent could act without disrupting other experience-dependent plasticity.
  • Evident from the text: the argument rests heavily on animal models, and the authors acknowledge that demonstrating incentive-sensitization in animals is "quite another" matter from demonstrating it in addicts; they also note it is not obvious which human behavioral measures best index neural sensitization.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1360-0443.95.8s2.19.x

Cites

143 of 143 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 226 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 139 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 44
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
70 of 70
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The neural substrate that mediates the psychomotor activating effects of drugs is either the same as, or at least overlaps with, the neural substrate responsible for the rewarding effects of drugs.

    “Studies on the psychomotor activating effects of drugs are thought to be relevant to addiction because of the assumption that the neural substrate that mediates these effects is either the same as, or at least overlaps with, the neural substrate responsible for the rewarding effects of drugs.15”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some drugs that do not produce strong withdrawal syndromes, such as psychostimulants, can be highly addictive.

    “For example, drugs that do not produce strong withdrawal syndromes, such as psychostimulants, can be highly addictive.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Repeated exposure to drugs of abuse can induce neural sensitization in humans.

    “these latter hypotheses are more speculative, and are predicated on the assumption that repeated exposure to drugs of abuse can induce neural sensitization in humans.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most human addicts are polysubstance abusers.

    “Also, most human addicts are polysubstance abusers, and it is not obvious whether any single agent would be effective if different drugs of abuse induce different sensitization-related neuroadaptations.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    People would be unwilling to take agents that block the development of sensitization before they become addicts.

    “However, it is unlikely that people would be willing to take such agents before they become addicts, and so these are not likely to be useful therapeutic tools.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Opiate addicts can be maintained for long periods of time by substitution of heroin or morphine with long-acting mu opiate receptor agonists, such as methadone or LAAM, and more recently by partial agonists such as buprenorphine.

    “Opiate addicts can be maintained for long periods of time by substitution of heroin or morphine with long-acting mu opiate receptor agonists, such as methadone or levo-alpha acetyl methadyl (LAAM), and more recently by partial agonists such as buprenorphine.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Drugs of abuse produce persistent alterations in many neural systems, altering many other psychological processes.

    “We must emphasize, however, that incentive -sensitization is just one contributor to addiction, and that drugs of abuse produce persistent alterations in many neural systems, altering many other psychological processes.”
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 143 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COMMITTEE ON OPPORTUNITIES IN DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH (1996) Pathways of Addiction (Washington, DC, National Academy Press).
  2. EDWARDS, G. (1981) Nomenclature and classi cation of drug-and alcohol-related prob- lems: a WHO memorandum, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 59, 225-242.
  3. WIKLER, A. (1948) Recent progress in research on the neurophysiological basis of morphine ad- diction, American Journal of Psychiatry, 105, 329- 338.
  4. GOUDIE, A. J. & DEMELLWEEK, C. (1986) Conditioning factors in drug tolerance, in: GOLDBERG, S. R. & STOLERMAN, I. P. (Eds) Behavioral Analysis of Drug Dependence, pp. 225- 285 (New York, Academic Press).
  5. JAFFE, J. H. (1992) Current concepts of addic- tion, in: O'BRIEN, C. P. & JAFFE, J. H. (Eds) Addictive States, pp. 1-21 (New York, Raven Press).
  6. DEWS, P. (1977) Remarks, in: THOMPSON, T. & UNNA, K. R. (Eds) Predicting Dependence Liability of Stimulant and Depressant Drugs, pp. 75-79 (Baltimore, University Park Press).
  7. CRABBE, J. C., JOHNSON, N. A., GRAY, D. K., KOSOBUD, A. & YOUNG, E. R. (1982) Biphasic effects of ethanol on open-eld activity: sensi- tivity and tolerance in C57BL/6N and DBA/2N mice, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 96, 440-451.
  8. KANTOR, L., HEWLETT, G. H. & GNEGY, M. E. (1999) Enhanced amphetamine-and K 1 -medi- ated dopamine release in rat striatum after re- peated amphetamine: differential requirements for Ca2 1 -and calmodulin-dependent phos- phorylation and synaptic vesicles, Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 3801-3808.
  9. BADIANI, A., OATES, M. M., DAY, H. E. W., WATSON, S. J., AKIL, H. & ROBINSON, T. E. (1998) Amphetamine-induced behavior, do- pamine release, and c-fos mRNA expression: modulation by environmental novelty, Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 10579-10593.
  10. SHIPPENBERG, T. S., LEFEVOUR, A. & HEIDBREDER, C. (1996) k-opioid receptor ago- nists prevent sensitization to the conditioned rewarding effects of cocaine, Journal of Pharma- cology and Experimental Therapeutics, 276, 545- 554. 103.
  11. FIORINO, D. F. & PHILLIPS, A. G. (1999) Facilita- tion of sexual behavior and enhanced dopamine ef ux in the nucleus accumbens of male rats after D-amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitiza- tion, Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 456-463. 114.
  12. ROBINSON, T. E. & KOLB, B. (1997) Persistent structural modi cations in nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex neurons produced by pre- vious experience with amphetamine, Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 8491-8497. 129.
  13. ANGRIST, B. (1994) Amphetamine psychosis: clinical variations of the syndrome, in: CHO, A. K. & SEGAL, D. S. (Eds) Amphetamine and its Analogs: psychopharmacology, toxicology and abuse, pp. 387- 414 (New York, Academic Press). 134.
  14. SATO, M. (1986) Acute exacerbation of metham- phetamine psychosis and lasting dopaminergic upersensitivity-a clinical survey, Psychopharma- cology Bulletin, 22, 751-756. 136.
  15. SEGAL, D. S. & SCHUCKIT, M. A. (1983) Animal models of stimulant-induced psychosis, in: CREESE, I. (Ed.) Stimulants: Neurochemical, Be- havioral and Clinical Perspectives, pp. 131-167 (New York, Raven Press). 137.
  16. UTENA, H. (1966) Behavioral aberrations in methamphetamine-intoxicated animals and chemical correlates in the brain, in: TOKIZANE, T. & SCHADE, J. P. (Eds) Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 21B, Coerrelative neurosciences: clinical studies, pp. 192-207 (Amsterdam, Elsevier). 138.
  17. GONON, F. (1997) Prolonged and extrasynaptic excitatory action of dopamine mediated by D1 receptors in the rat striatum in vivo, Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 5972-5978. 155.
  18. ROTHMAN, R. B. & GLOWA, J. R. (1995) A review of the effects of dopaminergic agents on humans, animals, and drug-seeking behavior, and its implications for medication development. Focus on GBR 12909, Molecular Neurobiology, 11, 1- 19. 179.
  19. TOATES, F. (1986) Motivational Systems (Cam- bridge, Cambridge University Press). 182.
  20. MEYER, R. E. (1992) New pharmacotherapies for cocaine dependence … revisited [published erra- tum appears in Archives of General Psychiatry 1993, 50(1),16], Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 900-904. 198.
  21. ZHANG, L., ELMER, L. W. & LITTLE, K. Y. (1998) Expression and regulation of the human do- pamine transporter in a neuronal cell line [pub- lished erratum appears in 1998 Dec 10, 63(1), 205], Molecular Brain Research, 59, 66-73. 209.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,507

Metadata

Authors
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-08
Volume
95
Issue
8s2
Pages
91-117
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
OpenAlex
W2099319294
Cited by
1,507
References
143
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 68
FWCI
14.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Addiction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
incentive-sensitization theory, drug-seeking behavior, relapse, incentive salience, reward, mesolimbic dopamine system, neural sensitization, neural adaptation, negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement, drug liking, addiction treatment
MeSH terms
Animals, Antidepressive Agents, Behavior Therapy, Brain, Compulsive Behavior, Disease Models, Animal, Drug Tolerance, Environment, Humans, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Narcotic Antagonists, Narcotics, Neurobiology, Recurrence, Reinforcement, Psychology, Illicit Drugs, Behavior, Addictive, Substance-Related Disorders, Rats

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 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (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