SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Incentive-Sensitization Theory of Addiction 30 Years On.

Annu Rev Psychol · 2024-12-03

DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-011624-024031PMID: 39094061

Open accessresearch-article; Review; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The incentive-sensitization theory (IST) of addiction was first published in 1993, proposing that (a) brain mesolimbic dopamine systems mediate incentive motivation ("wanting") for addictive drugs and other rewards, but not their hedonic impact (liking) when consumed; and (b) some individuals are vulnerable to drug-induced long-lasting sensitization of mesolimbic systems, which selectively amplifies their "wanting" for drugs without increasing their liking of the same drugs. Here we describe the origins of IST and evaluate its status 30 years on. We compare IST to other theories of addiction, including opponent-process theories, habit theories of addiction, and prefrontal cortical dysfunction theories of impaired impulse control. We also address critiques of IST that have been raised over the years, such as whether craving is important in addiction and whether addiction can ever be characterized as compulsive. Finally, we discuss several contemporary phenomena, including the potential role of incentive sensitization in behavioral addictions, the emergence of addiction-like dopamine dysregulation syndrome in medicated Parkinson's patients, the role of attentional capture and approach tendencies, and the role of uncertainty in incentive motivation.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.