Search

Redish et al. rely too much on a rational and innate view of decision-making, when their emphasis on variation, their integrative spirit, and their neuroscientific insights point towards a broader view of why addiction is such a tenacious problem. The integration of subjective, sociocultural, and evolutionary factors with cognitive neuroscience advances our understanding of addiction and decision-making.

The framework for addiction offered by the target article can perhaps be simplified into fewer, more basic, vulnerabilities. 'Impulsivity' covers a number of vulnerabilities, not just enhanced delay discounting. Real-world drug-use decisions involve both delay and probability discounting. The motivational salience of, and attentional bias for, drug cues may be related to a number of vulnerabilities. Interactions among vulnerabilities are of significance and complicate the application of this framework.

Neuroscientists and psychologists have proposed a variety of well-supported theories to explain addiction. Many of these theories suggest that addiction results from a single process or dysfunction across all of its forms. The authors of the current review, in contrast, have used a well-defined theoretical account of decision-making to outline the variety of dysfunctions that could account for addictive behavior.