The Incentive Sensitization Theory of Addiction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many theoretical constructs have been formulated over the years to explain the phenomenon of addiction. While the incentive sensitization theory of addiction acknowledges the important contributions of many former theories, it postulates that addiction is a state of aberrant motivation. Through repeated drug use, individuals with addiction become hypersensitive to the effects of the drugs themselves and to the stimuli associated with these drugs, including a variety of drug paraphernalia. For all individuals consuming drugs, drug-related stimuli have an inherent predictive value that signals an impending dose of the drug. For people with addiction, these drug cues move beyond being merely predictors for the drug and are imbued with excessive motivational value (called incentive salience); they become powerful motivational magnets capable of instigating and enhancing cravings for the drug. This incentive sensitization occurs through a process of neuroadaptations in the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system that have been shown to be long-lasting. These brain changes yield increasingly intense, highly focused cravings for an addictive target and transform cues related to the target into incentive stimuli that promote compulsive reward-seeking and relapse. The incentive sensitization theory does not deny a role for pleasure, habits, and withdrawal in addiction, but posits that those individuals with addiction (a) continue to take drugs compulsively even while experiencing diminished pleasure, (b) demonstrate creative new ways to procure drugs when necessary, and (c) often relapse well beyond when withdrawal has subsided. The critical factor in the development and maintenance of addiction is the persistent neuroadaptation that sensitizes the attribution of incentive salience to drugs and their cues, which explains why recovering from addiction is a long and slow process. The incentive sensitization theory can account for drug-induced attentional bias as well as how addiction can develop toward nondrug reward sources such as food, sex, and gambling environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it