| Course | PAC 110 Addiction Theories |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Learning theory application |
| Length | About 1,092 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PAC 110 Module 3
The Street, the Payday and the Wanting: Learning Theories of Addiction Applied to Early Recovery From Heroin
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PAC 110: Addiction Theories
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Street, the Payday and the Wanting: Learning Theories of Addiction Applied to Early Recovery From Heroin
Denise is thirty-six, a home health aide and a mother of one, and six weeks ago she began outpatient treatment at Millbrook Counseling Center, an invented program in western Pennsylvania, with buprenorphine and weekly counseling. She has been heroin free except for one day. That day she took a detour past the corner where she used to buy, felt her stomach turn over and was using within an hour. She also says that every other Friday, when she is paid, she feels restless and edgy all afternoon. She told her counselor that she does not even enjoy heroin anymore, so she cannot understand why she still wants it. Learning theories offer an account of all three experiences. Denise and Millbrook are composites written for this course, and the studies discussed below are real.
Classical Conditioning and the Power of Place
In classical conditioning, a neutral stimulus repeatedly paired with a powerful one comes to trigger a response on its own. For a person who uses drugs, the places, people, objects and times associated with use can become conditioned stimuli. They can trigger craving and even physical responses, some of which oppose the drug's effects as the body prepares for it. Siegel et al. (1982) demonstrated the danger this creates. They gave rats repeated doses of heroin in one environment and then gave them a large dose either in that environment or in a different one. Rats given the large dose in the unfamiliar environment died at about twice the rate of those given it in the familiar one. The researchers argued that part of tolerance is learned: the familiar setting triggers compensatory responses that protect against the drug, and a new setting does not. They suggested that some human overdose deaths may follow the same pattern.
Operant Conditioning and Relief
In operant conditioning, behavior followed by a reward becomes more likely. Drugs reward use directly through pleasure, which is positive reinforcement. Over time, as dependence develops, use is also rewarded by the removal of withdrawal symptoms and distress, which is negative reinforcement. Denise describes this shift. In her early use, heroin felt warm and calming; for the last several years she used mostly to stop feeling sick. Negative reinforcement is powerful because withdrawal returns reliably, so each dose is followed by relief. Her payday restlessness also fits operant learning: Friday was the day she had money to buy, and the anticipation itself became tied to reward. Over years, the sequence of cashing her check, making a call and driving across town was rewarded hundreds of times, and each step became a link in a chain that now starts on its own when the paycheck arrives. Learning theorists would expect that chain to weaken only slowly, as Fridays pass without the reward, and to return with surprising force if she uses even once. That expectation is useful for Denise, because it tells her that a strong pull on a Friday in her third month signals a predictable stage of unlearning rather than failure.
Wanting Without Liking
Robinson and Berridge (1993) proposed incentive sensitization theory to explain why craving can persist long after drugs stop producing pleasure. They distinguished two processes. Liking is the pleasure a drug produces. Wanting is the motivational pull toward the drug and the things linked to it, which they called incentive salience. Repeated drug use, they argued, sensitizes the brain systems that produce wanting, so that drugs and drug cues become increasingly attention-grabbing and attractive, while liking stays the same or declines. This sensitization can last a long time after use stops. The theory answers Denise's puzzle directly: she wants heroin intensely even though she no longer likes it, because wanting and liking are separate processes and only wanting has grown.
| Cue or experience | Learning process | What happens | Response in treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Driving past the old corner | Classical conditioning | Craving and nausea triggered by place | Plan routes that avoid it; practice coping with unavoidable cues |
| Payday Friday | Operant and classical | Restlessness tied to the day she could buy | Payday plan: direct deposit, scheduled activity, check-in call |
| Withdrawal discomfort | Negative reinforcement | Use relieved distress | Buprenorphine stabilizes; learn other ways to manage distress |
| Wanting without enjoyment | Incentive sensitization | Cues grab attention and pull toward use | Explain the process; expect cravings to ease slowly |
| Using alone in a new place | Conditioned tolerance | Higher overdose risk | Naloxone kit; never use alone if she does use |
Using Rewards to Support Change
If drug use is maintained by its consequences, changing the consequences should change the behavior. Contingency management applies this principle by giving tangible rewards, such as vouchers or prizes, for verified abstinence. Prendergast et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of controlled trials of contingency management for substance use disorders. They found that it was effective in reducing drug use, with larger effects for some substances, including opioids and cocaine, and that rewards given immediately after a negative test worked better than delayed ones. The effects tended to decline after the rewards ended. For Denise, a voucher program alongside buprenorphine and counseling would reward abstinence on exactly the schedule that learning theory suggests.
What Learning Theories Leave Out
Learning theories explain cues, cravings and the pull of relief with precision, and they lead to effective treatments. But they say less about other parts of Denise's story. They do not explain why she decided to start treatment after her daughter asked her to stop, or why her recovery feels connected to being the mother she wants to be. They describe people as shaped by consequences but say little about meaning, values and choice. They also say little about the conditions around her use: the back injury that led to her first prescription, the loss of her job when the clinic that employed her closed and the friends who used with her. A theory that sees only cues and rewards can miss the reasons a person was in those situations to begin with. Other theories in this course address those dimensions, and a social worker needs both.
Conclusion
Learning theories help explain Denise's relapse after passing the corner, her payday restlessness and her wanting without liking. Siegel and colleagues show that tolerance is partly learned, Robinson and Berridge separate wanting from liking and Prendergast and colleagues show that changing consequences can change use. Together they produce a practical plan: manage cues, reward abstinence and expect cravings to ease slowly, while other theories address the meaning of recovery in her life.
References
Prendergast, M., Podus, D., Finney, J., Greenwell, L., & Roll, J. (2006). Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 101(11), 1546-1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01581.x
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (1993). The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Research Reviews, 18(3), 247-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-P
Siegel, S., Hinson, R. E., Krank, M. D., & McCully, J. (1982). Heroin "overdose" death: Contribution of drug-associated environmental cues. Science, 216(4544), 436-437. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7200260
What the PAC 110 Module 3 instructions ask for
A learning theory assignment, typical of the third module in PAC 110, wants the conditioning processes explained precisely and then put to work on a real pattern of use. The course's own Module 3 instructions take priority; the client here is invented. Define classical and operant conditioning accurately, including negative reinforcement. Present at least one research finding that shows learning at work in addiction. Explain a more recent theory that builds on conditioning. Apply each process to specific cues and behaviors in your case, and show a treatment that follows from the theory with evidence that it works. Close with what learning theories leave out, citing every source in APA 7. If your case involves opioids, include overdose safety, since the theory itself points to it.
How this PAC 110 Module 3 example is built
Denise relapsed once after driving past the street where she used to buy, and she still feels a pull every payday. Siegel and colleagues' Science report on conditioned tolerance and overdose explains why using in a new place is dangerous. The operant section shows how heroin first rewarded her with pleasure and later with relief from withdrawal. Robinson and Berridge's Brain Research Reviews article explains why her craving can grow even though the drug no longer feels good. A five-row table pairs each cue with its learning process and a response. Prendergast and colleagues' Addiction meta-analysis supports adding vouchers for negative urine tests. The final section names what conditioning cannot explain about her story: her reasons, her daughter and the meaning she gives recovery.
PAC 110 Module 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Learning theory papers are judged on accurate definitions, especially of negative reinforcement, on evidence and on application to specific behavior. This example defines each process correctly, then ties it to a named cue in Denise's life. Siegel's finding is reported with its safety implication, which shows the theory matters outside the laboratory. Incentive sensitization is explained through the distinction between wanting and liking, which students often blur. The table connects theory to plan, and the meta-analysis grounds contingency management in evidence. The closing section on what learning theory misses, such as meaning, relationships and choice, provides the critical evaluation the course asks for in every module.
Common PAC 110 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common error is defining negative reinforcement as punishment; it means behavior increases because it removes something unpleasant, such as withdrawal. Another is describing conditioning in general terms without naming the client's actual cues. Report research findings accurately, including the conditions under which they were found. Explain newer theories, such as incentive sensitization, rather than stopping with Pavlov and Skinner. Show how the theory leads to treatment and cite evidence that the treatment works. Finally, name the theory's limits; learning accounts explain much about cues and craving but less about why people decide to change or what gives recovery meaning. Keep safety in view when the substance is an opioid.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PAC 110 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PAC 110 Module 1: Models of Addiction Across History
- PAC 110 Module 2: Biological and Genetic Theories
- PAC 110 Module 4: Cognitive and Psychodynamic Approaches
- PAC 110 Module 5: Social and Environmental Theories
- PAC 110 Module 6: Theories of Change and Motivation
- PAC 110 Module 7: Systems of Psychotherapy in Addiction Practice
- PAC 110 Module 8: Integrating Theory Into Personal Practice
- PAC 120 Module 3: Attending, Observing and Questioning
- PAC 230 Module 8: Reducing Adverse Health Outcomes in Families
- SBS 105 Module 2: The Biology of Behavior
- PAC 115 Module 1: Roots, Prefixes and Suffixes
PAC 110 Module 3 questions, answered
What does PAC 110 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's PAC 110 covers learning and behavioral theories in this module, so explaining conditioning and applying it to a client's cues and treatment is typical. See your Module 3 prompt.
What is conditioned tolerance?
Tolerance that depends partly on the setting where a drug is usually taken. Siegel and colleagues found that rats given a familiar dose in a new setting died far more often.
What is the difference between wanting and liking in addiction?
Robinson and Berridge argued that repeated use makes drugs more wanted, through sensitized incentive salience, even when they are no longer liked more.
Where can I find a free PAC 110 Module 3 sample paper?
Find it above in full: learning theories of addiction applied to a client in early recovery from heroin, with a table mapping her cues.
Does contingency management work?
Prendergast and colleagues' meta-analysis found it reduced drug use across many trials, with effects that tended to shrink after the rewards ended.