A neurobehavioral approach to addiction: implications for the opioid epidemic and the psychology of addiction
Abstract
Two major questions about addictive behaviors need to be explained by any worthwhile neurobiological theory. First, why do people seek drugs in the first place? Second, why do some people who use drugs seem to eventually become unable to resist drug temptation and so become "addicted"? We will review the theories of addiction that address negative-reinforcement views of drug use (i.e., taking opioids to alleviate distress or withdrawal), positive-reinforcement views (i.e., taking drugs for euphoria), habit views (i.e., growth of automatic drug-use routines), incentive-sensitization views (i.e., growth of excessive "wanting" to take drugs as a result of dopamine-related sensitization), and cognitive-dysfunction views (i.e., impaired prefrontal top-down control), including those involving competing neurobehavioral decision systems (CNDS), and the role of the insula in modulating addictive drug craving. In the special case of opioids, particular attention is paid to whether their analgesic effects overlap with their reinforcing effects and whether the perceived low risk of taking legal medicinal opioids, which are often prescribed by a health professional, could play a role in the decision to use. Specifically, we will address the issue of predisposition or vulnerability to becoming addicted to drugs (i.e., the question of why some people who experiment with drugs develop an addiction, while others do not). Finally, we review attempts to develop novel therapeutic strategies and policy ideas that could help prevent opioid and other substance abuse.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The technique of episodic future thinking attempts to strengthen the power of cognitions related to the future and has been used in treating drug addiction.
“The technique of episodic future thinking attempts to strengthen the power of cognitions related to the future and has been used in treating drug addiction (Bechara et al., 2019).”
From A motivation model of sex addiction – Relevance to the controversy over the concept (2022) · cites this paper as Bechara et al., 2019
In “Interventions to increase control of the executive decision system” (page unavailable), the paper describes episodic future thinking as vividly imagining future events and reports reduced cigarette smoking in a laboratory task. It says adapting the intervention for clinical treatment may reveal its efficacy for substance-use disorders; it does not establish that it has been used to treat drug addiction clinically. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStress diminishes the inhibition exerted by the goal-based control.
“Stress diminishes the inhibition exerted by the goal-based control (Bechara et al., 2019).”
From A motivation model of sex addiction – Relevance to the controversy over the concept (2022) · cites this paper as Bechara et al., 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 297 · Cited by 82
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Guthrie, E. R. (1935). The psychology of learning (1st ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
- Koneru, A., Satyanarayana, S., & Rizwan, S. (2009). Endogenous opioids: Their physiological role and recep- tors. Global Journal of Pharmacology, 3, 149-153.
- Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2003). Addiction. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 25-53.
- Authors
- Bechara, A., Berridge, K. C., Bickel, W. K., Morón, J. A., Williams, S. B., & Stein, J. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Virginia Tech (US)
- Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bechara, Antoine
- Venue
- Psychological Science in the Public Interest
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 96-127
- ISSN
- 1539-6053 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-1006
- OpenAlex
- W2979427632
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 297
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 4.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Gothic.net (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH063649)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA041781, R33DA041883, R21DA041883, R01DA015188, R01DA045463)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
- Keywords
- addiction, opioid epidemic, negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement, habit formation, incentive sensitization, dopamine, cognitive impairment, insula, drug craving, prescription opioid misuse, addiction vulnerability, substance use prevention, substance abuse policy
- MeSH terms
- Opioid Epidemic, Decision Making, Humans, Opioid-Related Disorders, Behavior, Addictive, Craving
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