Current interpretations of the I-PACE model of behavioral addictions

Brand, Matthias; Müller, Astrid; Wegmann, Elisa; Antons, Stephanie; Brandtner, Annika; Mueller, Silke M.; Stark, Rudolf; Sabine Steins‐Loeber; Potenza, Marc N. · 2025 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1556/2006.2025.00020

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This viewpoint article addresses the need for greater precision in the Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model, a widely used theoretical framework for behavioral addictions. The authors argue that while the model is frequently employed to generate hypotheses, controversial interpretations of its specific elements hinder its utility. The paper aims to clarify definitions of central constructs and processes, such as reinforcement, cue-reactivity, and self-control, to improve theoretical clarity and clinical application. It is not a comprehensive review or a proposal for a new model, but rather a selective critical evaluation of current interpretations. The authors refine the distinction between early and later stages of addiction, equating early stages with "risky behaviors" and later stages with "addictive behaviors" meeting diagnostic criteria. They clarify that addiction development is gradual and non-linear, potentially involving recovery or symptom shifts. Regarding reinforcement, the paper specifies that "gratification" (positive reinforcement) and "compensation" (negative reinforcement) are not mutually exclusive nor do they undergo a complete shift. Instead, gratification remains relevant throughout the process, while compensation increases in dominance over time, particularly in later stages. The authors also integrate "desire thinking" and "permissive beliefs" into the model to explain how desires develop into craving, distinguishing between reward craving (pleasure-seeking) and relief craving (aversive state alleviation). Further findings elaborate on the relationship between impulsive, habitual, and compulsive behaviors, noting that seemingly compulsive actions are often driven by the expectation that specific behaviors are necessary to avoid negative mental states. The paper distinguishes between general self-control and situation-specific executive functions, suggesting that deficits in the latter are more critical in addiction maintenance. Additionally, the authors introduce punishment (in)sensitivity as a new element potentially involved in behavioral addictions. These constructs are framed within the context of changes over time, acknowledging that individual trajectories vary and that mechanisms may fluctuate non-linearly. The significance of this work lies in its effort to reduce ambiguity in the I-PACE model, thereby facilitating more precise hypothesis generation and empirical testing. By clarifying the roles of reinforcement, craving, and executive functions, the authors aim to advance theory building and improve clinical care in the field of behavioral addictions. The article emphasizes that while models cannot capture all complexity, precise definitions of included constructs are essential for scientific progress and for understanding the transition from non-problematic to addictive behaviors.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• executive function