An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect.

Solomon, Richard L.; Corbit, John D.

doi:10.1037/h0036128

Cited by 1,545 publications

(1,071 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

966

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, activation of brain reward systems with concomitant activation of the HPA axis ultimately can lead to activation of brain stress systems. Such an acti- Solomon and Corbit's (1974) opponent-process model of motivation to incorporate the conceptual framework of this paper. Both panels represent the affective response to the presentation of a drug.…”

Section: Individual Differences and Rewardmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using a conceptualization originally grounded in opponent-process theory (Solomon and Corbit 1974), the effects of natural rewards on hedonic state are dependent on the nature of the reward and the frequency of delivery (Figure 4). Rewards that have initial pleasurable effects can show some apparent tolerance and some evidence of a negative affective opponent-process.…”

Section: Opponent-process Counteradaptation In Vulnerability To Addicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The transition to pathologically strong wanting or craving has been proposed to define compulsive use. An alternative counteradaptation hypothesis long has been proposed where the initial acute effect of the drug is opposed or counteracted by homeostatic changes in systems that mediate primary drug effects (Poulos and Cappell 1991;Siegel 1975;Solomon and Corbit 1974). In this opponent-process theory, tolerance and dependence are inextricably linked (Solomon and Corbit 1974), and affective states, pleasant or aversive, were hypothesized to be automatically opposed by centrally mediated mechanisms that reduce the intensity of these affective states.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It follows then that the neuroadaptations in the brain reward system associated with an abundance of rewards produced by changes in the environment are the same neuroadaptations observed to drug rewards. As such, drugs of abuse have powerful neuropharmacological effects that may short circuit the neurochemistry of reward.Using a conceptualization originally grounded in opponent-process theory (Solomon and Corbit 1974), the effects of natural rewards on hedonic state are dependent on the nature of the reward and the frequency of delivery (Figure 4). Rewards that have initial pleasurable effects can show some apparent tolerance and some evidence of a negative affective opponent-process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Drug Addiction, Dysregulation of Reward, and Allostasis

Koob

Moal

2001

Neuropsychopharmacology

2,544

1,962

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews recent developments in the neurocircuitry and neurobiology of addiction from a perspective of allostasis. A model is proposed for brain changes that occur during the development of addiction that explain the persistent vulnerability to relapse long after drug-taking has ceased. Addiction is presented as a cycle of spiralling dysregulation of brain reward systems that progressively increases, resulting in the compulsive use and loss of control over drug-taking. The development of addiction recruits different sources of reinforcement, different neuroadaptive mechanisms, and different neurochemical changes to dysregulate the brain reward system. Counteradaptive processes such as opponent-process that are part of normal homeostatic limitation of reward function fail to return within the normal homeostatic range and are hypothesized to form an allostatic state. Allostasis from the addiction perspective is defined as the process of maintaining apparent reward function stability by changes in brain reward mechanisms. The allostatic state represents a chronic deviation of reward set point and is fueled not only by dysregulation of reward circuits per se, but also by the activation of brain and hormonal stress responses. The manifestation of this allostatic state as compulsive drugtaking and loss of control over drug-taking is hypothesized to be expressed through activation of brain circuits involved in compulsive behavior such as the cortico-striatal-thalamic loop. The view that addiction is the pathology that results from an allostatic mechanism using the circuits established for natural rewards provides a realistic approach to BACKGROUNDDrug addiction is a chronically relapsing disorder that is defined by two major characteristics: a compulsion to take the drug with a narrowing of the behavioral repertoire toward excessive drug intake, and a loss of control in limiting intake (American Psychiatric Association 1994; World Health Organization 1992). An important challenge for neurobiological research is to understand the neuroadaptive differences between controlled drug use and loss of control, and by extension, the molecular, cellular and system processes that lead to addiction (Koob and Le Moal 1997).Animal models are critical for understanding the neuropharmacological mechanisms involved in the development of addiction. While there are no complete animal models of addiction, animal models do exist for many elements of the syndrome. These elements can be derived from symptoms or diagnostic criteria for addiction or conceptual frameworks such as different sources of reinforcement (American Psychiatric Association 1994; World Health Organization 1992). Linking neu- 24 , NO . 2 ropharmacological events to animal models can occur at multiple levels of analysis -molecular, cellular and system -and it will only be the integration of these changes across dimensions of analysis that will allow a full understanding of the neurobiology of drug addiction.Advances in neuroscience research are rapidly unr...

show abstract

Section: Individual Differences and Rewardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Opponent-process Counteradaptation In Vulnerability To Addicmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Drug Addiction, Dysregulation of Reward, and Allostasis

Koob

Moal

2001

Neuropsychopharmacology

2,544

1,962

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to overcome this ingrained fear, it is necessary to habituate in some way to stimuli associated with self-injury. With respect to self-injury, opponent process theory (Solomon, 1980;Solomon and Corbit, 1974) holds that exposure to painful stimuli eventually engages an opposite reaction, one likely to induce analgesia and calm. With repetition, the pain associated with these experiences decreases, and the more reinforcing aspects increase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting impulsivity in suicide: Implications for civil liability of third parties

Smith

Witte

Teale

et al. 2008

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research and popular conceptualizations of suicide have posited that many suicides are the result of impulsive, "on a whim" decisions. However, recent research demonstrates that most suicides are not attempted impulsively, and in fact involve a plan. Legally, suicide has historically been considered to be a superseding intervening cause of death that exonerates other parties from liability, but currently there are two general exceptions to this view. Specifically, another party may be found responsible for a suicide if that party either caused the suicide or failed in its duty to prevent the suicide from occurring. Both of these exceptions assume that the resulting suicide was foreseeable. Given that recent research has indicated that most suicides are planned, and thereby foreseeable to a certain extent under many circumstances, this article discusses issues of foreseeability as they pertain to litigation involving third party liability for the suicide of university students, prison inmates, and mental health patients. The authors contend that the surest way for universities, prison staff, and mental health practitioners to avoid being held liable for a suicide is to appropriately assess for suicidal intent.Suicide is the third leading cause of death for people aged 15 to 24 and the 11 th leading cause of death overall (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2004). Approximately 30,000 people die by suicide every year in the U.S. Moreover, four times that many people are hospitalized due to injuries sustained while attempting suicide (CDC, 2004). For the purposes of this paper we will use Silverman and colleagues ' (Silverman, Berman, Sanddal, O'Carroll, & Joiner, 2007) definition of a "suicide attempt," which is "a self-inflicted, potentially injurious behavior with a nonfatal outcome for which there is evidence (either explicit or implicit) of intent to die." Suicide is thus a serious mental health issue and public health problem. In the wake of a suicide, loved ones are often left looking for answers. When family members or friends feel something more should have been done for the decedent, they may ultimately try to settle things in a court of law. In fact, the most common type of lawsuit brought against psychiatrists is in regard to patient suicide (Simon, 2002). Furthermore, records from the American Psychological Association's Insurance Trust indicate that of claims closed by 1990, patient suicide was the second most costly claim for psychiatrists and psychologists insured by the company (Bongar, Maris, Berman, & Litman, 1998). As our society has become more litigious, the number of malpractice suits filed against therapists has risen dramatically and will likely continue to rise (Berman, 1986).Although the causes of suicide are complex, they are not mysterious, and in fact are becoming better understood thanks to decades of scientific research. One comprehensive (Van Orden, et al., 2008). According to this theory three proximal, jointly necessary, and sufficient causes must be present befo...

show abstract

The Missing P in Psychiatric Training

Elman¹,

Zubieta²,

Borsook³

2011

Arch Gen Psychiatry

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Pain problems are exceedingly prevalent among psychiatric patients. Moreover, clinical impressions and neurobiological research suggest that physical and psychological aspects of pain are closely related entities. Nonetheless, remarkably few pain-related themes are presently included in psychiatric residency training. Objective Our objective is twofold: (1) to provide clinical and scientific rationale for psychiatric training enrichment with basic tenets of pain medicine and (2) to raise the awareness and sensitivity of clinicians, scientists and educators alike to the important yet unmet clinical and public health need. Results Three lines of translational research evidence, extracted from the comprehensive literature review, are presented in support of the objective. First, the neuroanatomical and functional overlap between pain and emotion/reward/motivation brain circuits suggests integration and mutual modulation of these systems. Second, psychiatric disorders are commonly associated with alterations in pain processing, whereas chronic pain may impair emotional and neurocognitive functioning. Third, pain may serve as a functional probe for unraveling pathophysiological mechanisms inherent in psychiatric morbidity given its stressful nature for the organism. Conclusions Pain training in psychiatry will not only contribute to deeper and more sophisticated insights into pain syndromes but also into psychiatric morbidity at large regardless of patients’ pain status. Furthermore, it will ease artificial boundaries separating psychiatric and medical formulations of brain disorders, thus fostering cross-fertilizing interactions between specialists in various disciplines entrusted with the care of pain patients.

show abstract

An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect.

Cited by 1,545 publications

References 25 publications

Drug Addiction, Dysregulation of Reward, and Allostasis

Drug Addiction, Dysregulation of Reward, and Allostasis

Revisiting impulsivity in suicide: Implications for civil liability of third parties

The Missing P in Psychiatric Training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About