Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40063161›Full record

ReviewJournal of behavioral addictions2025

Current interpretations of the I-PACE model of behavioral addictions.

Matthias Brand, Astrid Müller, Elisa Wegmann, Stephanie Antons, Annika Brandtner, Silke M Müller, Rudolf Stark, Sabine Steins-Loeber, Marc N Potenza

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of behavioral addictions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Matthias Brand1General Psychology: Cognition, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4831-9542
Astrid Müller4Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6176-2947
Elisa Wegmann1General Psychology: Cognition, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9373-979X
Stephanie Antons1General Psychology: Cognition, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3187-968X
Annika Brandtner1General Psychology: Cognition, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7646-2338
Silke M Müller1General Psychology: Cognition, Faculty of Computer Science, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6627-2661
Rudolf Stark5Department for Psychotherapy and Systems Neuroscience, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4299-5280
Sabine Steins-Loeber8Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7651-0627
Marc N Potenza9Departments of Psychiatry, Neuroscience and Child Study, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6323-1354

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: The Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model of behavioral addictions is used relatively often as a scientific framework to specify research hypotheses and to interpret empirical findings in behavioral addiction research. There are, however, controversial interpretations in the literature regarding some specific elements of the model, which may require a more precise definition of specific constructs and processes that are central to the I-PACE model. Methods: This is neither a comprehensive literature review nor a proposal for a new version of the I-PACE model. We aim to provide a selective, critical evaluation of some interpretations of the model and to include recent developments regarding addiction theories and controversial debates. Results: The role of gratification and compensation and therefore positive and negative reinforcement are specified. The concepts of cue-reactivity and craving are considered in the context of desire thinking and permissive beliefs. The relationships between impulsive, habitual, and compulsive behaviors in behavioral addictions are discussed. The effects of general self-control and situation-specific executive functions are elaborated. Punishment (in)sensitivity is discussed as a further important process potentially involved in behavioral addictions. These constructs and processes (through their interactions) are considered in the context of changes over time in the course of addictive behaviors. Conclusion: This viewpoint article aims to provide greater precision and clarity regarding some specific elements of the I-PACE model, which may help stimulate research and theory building and advance clinical care in the behavioral addiction field.

Indexed as

Behavior, AddictiveCognitionExecutive FunctionModels, PsychologicalHumansPunishmentReinforcement, PsychologySelf-Controlcue-reactivity and cravinghabitual and compulsive behaviorspunishment sensitivityreinforcementself-controltheoretical considerations

Identifiers

PMID40063161
PMCPMC11974429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.