Kent C. Berridge & Terry E. Robinson (2016), American Psychologist 71(8):670–679 — DOI-10.1037/amp0000059
Key takeaways
From the reading, NOTE-1109. Located by section; the manuscript is unpaginated.
- The theory. “The incentive-sensitization theory posits the essence of drug addiction to be excessive amplification specifically of psychological ‘wanting’, especially triggered by cues, without necessarily an amplification of ‘liking’” (Abstract).
- ‘Wanting’ is cue-bound, not goal-bound. “incentive salience ‘wanting’ is less connected to cognitive goals and more tightly linked to reward cues, making those cues attention-grabbing and attractive” (Psychological Features of Incentive Salience).
- It can oppose what the person wants. It “can occur either in opposition to a cognitive desire or even unconsciously in absence of any cognitive desire”. The recovering addict “has a genuine cognitive desire to abstain from taking drugs, but still ‘wants’ drugs, so relapses anyway when exposed to drug cues” (after Figure 1).
- Sensitization lasts, and is reactive rather than tonic. “Once induced, sensitization is very long lasting, and possibly even permanent.” “A sensitized dopamine system is not always hyper-active, but it is hyper-reactive to drug cues and contexts” (Addiction Distorts ‘Wanting’ Versus ‘Liking’). During abstinence, “if anything, sensitization grows for some time” (Disentangling Reports).
- ‘Liking’ does not follow. “‘Liking’, by contrast, need not increase with sensitization, and may even decrease” (Addiction Distorts).
- Beyond drugs, tentatively. “neural sensitization of ‘wanting’ mechanisms may in some cases occur without drugs”, “through mechanisms not yet understood” (Other Behavioral Addictions?). Dopamine agonists in Parkinson’s disease produce “intense and idiosyncratically diverse ‘wants’” without reported pleasure.
Standing in the record
Filed on 2026-10-23 at the owner’s request, for QUESTION-267: when the
ordering that prevails ranks a system’s states by a proxy for its
maintenance, is that valence, and is it the form addiction and metric
fixation share? On the personal side the theory gives the question a
mechanism. Sensitized ‘wanting’ shows all three of the marks by which
TERM-076 defines potential, and its strength is set by cue
reactivity, not by what the outcome does for the person. It also presses
on CLAIM-433. That claim pairs the potential’s strength with ‘wanting’ and
sign with goal conduciveness, and this paper’s recovering addict is the
case where the two come apart. It is the same programme as THEORY-893
and another review, so it cannot meet that reading’s promote_when. The
account is THEORY-895.