The authors argue that drug taking is an operant behavior that is reinforced by the drug itself. The effectiveness of a drug as a reinforcer is modulated by sensitization and habituation to the drug as it is consumed. According to this model, drug taking stops when habituation reduces the ability of the drug to reinforce its own consumption. Drug taking resumes when spontaneous recovery restores the effectiveness of the drug as a reinforcer. This parsimonious model provides a framework for understanding many findings in the drug literature, including acute and chronic tolerance, the effect of deprivation on consumption, the contextual specificity of tolerance, polydrug abuse, cross-sensitization between stress and drugs, behavioral sensitization, priming, and reinstatement. Although this model cannot explain all aspects of drug taking (e.g., the effect of cognitive manipulations), it has many implications for understanding and controlling human drug consumption and addiction.
Reinforcers lose their effectiveness when they are presented repeatedly. Traditionally, this loss of effectiveness has been labeled satiation. However, recent evidence suggests that habituation provides a more accurate and useful description. The characteristics of behavior undergoing satiation differ for different stimuli (e.g., food, water), and these characteristics have not been identified for the noningestive reinforcers often used by applied behavior analysts (e.g., praise, attention). As a result, the term satiation provides little guidance for either maintaining or reducing the effectiveness of reinforcers. In contrast, the characteristics of behavior undergoing habituation are well known and are relatively general across species and stimuli. These characteristics provide specific and novel guidance about how to maintain or reduce the effectiveness of a reinforcer. In addition, habituation may lead to a better understanding of several puzzling phenomena in the conditioning literature (e.g., extinction, behavioral contrast), and it may provide a more precise and accurate description of the dynamics of many different types of behavior.
The authors of four papers recently reported that satiation provides a better explanation than habituation for within-session decreases in conditioned responding. Several arguments question this conclusion. First, the contribution of habituation to within-session changes in responding seems clearly established. Information that is consistent with habituation, but that is difficult to reconcile with satiation, is not adequately addressed. Second, the limited evidence offered in support of satiation is ambiguous because the results are just as compatible with habituation as with other satiety variables. Finally, the term satiation is used in an intuitive way that is sometimes contradicted by research about the termination of ingestion. Use of the technical term satiation in a way that differs from its conventional usage will only isolate operant psychology from other areas of psychological research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.