Behavioral perspectives on the neuroscience of drug addiction.

Winger et al. (2005) wrote a theory paper. They said addiction is learned behavior. Drugs act like any other reinforcer. The brain disease story hides the learning part.

The authors asked behavior analysts to build new tools. These tools would measure how strongly drugs pull behavior. No new data were collected.

The paper did not test people. It argued that addiction science needs better behavioral yardsticks. Without them, treatment drifts toward biology-only fixes.

MacKillop (2013) answered the call. The review showed that delay discounting is a stable, heritable marker. It gives the field a ready-made yardstick for drug reinforcing strength.

Rung et al. (2019) went further. They showed that discounting can be changed with behavioral tricks. This turns the target’s static model into a treatment target.

Green et al. (2019) add nuance. Steep discounting is not a fixed trait. Context shapes choice. This keeps the behavioral frame but warns against labeling clients as simply impulsive.

You now have a clear path. Start measuring delay discounting in clients with substance use. Use brief adjusting-amount tasks. Track how impulsive choice moves as treatment proceeds. Pair the data with contingency management. You will be testing the very model Gail et al. asked the field to build.