Cited by 140Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeuroendocrine regulation and behaviorSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Disruption of maternal parenting circuitry by addictive process: rewiring of reward and stress systems

Open access
Rutherford, Helena J. V., Williams, Sarah K., Moy, Sheryl, Mayes, Linda C., Johns, Josephine M.·2011·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Addiction represents a complex interaction between the reward and stress neural circuits, with increasing drug use reflecting a shift from positive reinforcement to negative reinforcement mechanisms in sustaining drug dependence. Preclinical studies have indicated the involvement of regions within the extended amygdala as subserving this transition, especially under stressful conditions. In the addictive situation, the reward system serves to maintain habitual behaviors that are associated with the relief of negative affect, at the cost of attenuating the salience of other rewards. Therefore, addiction reflects the dysregulation between core reward systems, including the prefrontal cortex (PFC), ventral tegmental area (VTA), and nucleus accumbens (NAc), as well as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and extended amygdala of the stress system. Here, we consider the consequences of changes in neural function during or following addiction on parenting, an inherently rewarding process that may be disrupted by addiction. Specifically, we outline the preclinical and human studies that support the dysregulation of reward and stress systems by addiction and the contribution of these systems to parenting. Increasing evidence suggests an important role for the hypothalamus, PFC, VTA, and NAc in parenting, with these same regions being those dysregulated in addiction. Moreover, in addicted adults, we propose that parenting cues trigger stress reactivity rather than reward salience, and this may heighten negative affect states, eliciting both addictive behaviors and the potential for child neglect and 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyt.2011.00037

Cites

179 of 183 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Parenting supports and decreased parenting stress positively impact parental recovery from SUDs.

    “Parenting supports and decreased parenting stress positively impact parental recovery from SUDs (Rutherford et al., 2011; Suchman et al., 2013)”

    From Home‐based family recovery supports: Feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of training home visitors in “Mothering from the Inside Out” (2025) · cites this paper as Rutherford et al., 2011

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) suggests that therapies targeting stress regulation may help mothers maintain abstinence, and the section “Parenting Cues as Stressful Cues in Addiction” links parenting stress to craving and relapse. It does not establish that parenting supports or reduced parenting stress positively impact recovery; those are presented as therapeutic possibilities rather than demonstrated outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Mothers with addictions may be less able to respond appropriately to their children's cues, finding them less intrinsically rewarding or salient and more stress-provoking.

    “Unlike many mothers who find engaging with their own children to be a uniquely rewarding experience, mothers with addictions may be less able to respond appropriately to their children’s cues, finding them less intrinsically rewarding or salient and more stress-provoking (Rutherford et al., 2011).”

    From The maternal brain and its plasticity in humans (2016) · cites this paper as Rutherford et al., 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rutherford, H. J. V., Williams, S. K., Moy, S., Mayes, L. C., & Johns, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
  • Rutherford, Helena J. V.
  • Williams, Sarah K.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2011
Volume
2
Pages
37-37
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2101025385
Cited by
140
References
174
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (P01DA022446)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
maternal care, addiction, reward systems, stress system, extended amygdala, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, prefrontal cortex, ventral tegmental area, nucleus accumbens, stress reactivity, negative reinforcement, child neglect, child abuse, neural circuits

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