A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process

A. David Redish, Steve Jensen, Adam Johnson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    288 Scopus citations


    The understanding of decision-making systems has come together in recent years to form a unified theory of decision-making in the mammalian brain as arising from multiple, interacting systems (a planning system, a habit system, and a situation-recognition system). This unified decision-making system has multiple potential access points through which it can be driven to make maladaptive choices, particularly choices that entail seeking of certain drugs or behaviors. We identify 10 key vulnerabilities in the system: (1) moving away from homeostasis, (2) changing allostatic set points, (3) euphorigenic "reward-like" signals, (4) overvaluation in the planning system, (5) incorrect search of situation-action-outcome relationships, (6) misclassification of situations, (7) overvaluation in the habit system, (8) a mismatch in the balance of the two decision systems, (9) over-fast discounting processes, and (10) changed learning rates. These vulnerabilities provide a taxonomy of potential problems with decision-making systems. Although each vulnerability can drive an agent to return to the addictive choice, each vulnerability also implies a characteristic symptomology. Different drugs, different behaviors, and different individuals are likely to access different vulnerabilities. This has implications for an individual's susceptibility to addiction and the transition to addiction, for the potential for relapse, and for the potential for treatment.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)415-437+470-487
    JournalBehavioral and Brain Sciences
    Issue number4
    StatePublished - Aug 2008


    • Addiction
    • Decision making
    • Dopamine
    • Frontal cortex
    • Gambling
    • Hippocampus
    • Striatum


    Dive into the research topics of 'A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this