Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:50:52.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vulnerabilities to addiction must have their impact through the common currency of discounted reward1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2008

George Ainslie
George Ainslie
Affiliation:
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Coatesville, PA 19320. George.Ainslie@va.govwww.picoeconomics.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ten vulnerabilities discussed in the target article vary in their likelihood of producing temporary preference for addictive activities – which is the phenomenon that puzzles conventional motivational theory. Direct dopaminergic stimulation, but probably not the other vulnerabilities, may contribute to the necessary concavity of addicts' delay discounting curves, as may factors that the senior author analyzes elsewhere. Whatever their origins, these curves can themselves account for temporary preference, sudden craving, and the “automatic” habits discussed here.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 438 - 439
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainslie, G. (1992) Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ainslie, G. (1992) Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2001) Breakdown of will. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2005) Précis of Breakdown of will. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(5):635–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainslie, G. (in press) Recursive self-prediction as a proximate cause of impulsivity: The value of a bottom-up model. In: Theory, science and neuroscience of discounting, ed. Madden, G., Bickel, W. & Critchfield, T.. APA Books.Google Scholar
Alloy, L. B. & Abramson, L. Y. (1979) Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 108:441–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, G. S., Grossman, M. & Murphy, K. M. (1992) Rational addiction and the effect of price on consumption. In: Choice over time, ed. Loewenstein, G. & Elster, J.. pp. 361–70. Sage.Google Scholar
Berridge, K. C. (2007) The debate over dopamine's role in reward: The case for incentive salience. Psychopharmacology 191(3):391–431.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1920/1956) Beyond the pleasure principle. In: The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 18, ed. Strachey, J. & Freud, A.. Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1920).Google Scholar
Olmstead, T. A., Sindelar, J. L. & Petry, N. M. (2007) Cost-effectiveness of prize-based incentives for stimulant abusers in outpatient psychosocial treatment programs. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 16:175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redish, A. D. & Kurth-Nelson, Z. (in press) Neural models of temporal discounting. In: Impulsivity: Theory, science, and neuroscience of discounting, ed. Madden, G., Bickel, W. & Critchfield, T.. APA Books.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. E. & Berridge, K. C. (2001) Mechanisms of action of addictive stimuli: Incentive sensitization and addiction. Addiction 96:103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkow, N. D., Fowler, J. S. & Wang, G.-J. (2002) Role of dopamine in drug reinforcement and addiction in humans: Results from imaging studies. Behavioral Pharmacology 13(5):355–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, J. B. (1924) Behaviorism. The People's Institute/ Norton.Google Scholar