Yes, here’s a paper discussing it:
http://dept.wofford.edu/neuroscience/NeuroSeminar/pdfFall2008/a9.pdf

Bechara suggests that its about insensitivity to future consequences, linked to orbitofrontal function. From my own research, I’ve formed a qualitative hunch (its not quite a hypothesis yet) that people can have seperate impairments to future consequences for rewards and future consequences to punishments.

For example, the literature on psychopathy suggests psychopaths are less sensitive to fear and punishing stimuli, whilst maintaining sensitivity to rewards. Of course, psychopaths also lack empathy, which is something altogether different.

My hunch is that people with low sensitivity to future punishments will indulge in risk taking or antisocial behaviours more frequently, which will include things like taking drugs. If however, these same people have intact sensitivity to rewards (and future rewards) then they may be able to inhibit their drug use by being motivated by that.

In other words, there may be people who are insensitive to punishment based operant conditioning, even though they are still sensitive to reward based operant conditioning.

From a social perspective, I also feel that the lack of prospects of future reward in some people’s social environment means that they may feel they have little to lose by taking various drugs. In contrast, us psychologists have a lot to lose (or plenty to gain by not taking drugs) such as failing a CRB check or getting the psychology job we want.

You may want to read Gene Heyman’s 2009 book Addiction. http://www.amazon.com/Addiction-Disorder-Gene-M-Heyman/dp/0674032985. He includes this finding as a major part of his theory.

Kind, empathetic socially rewarding treatment is much more effective— so monetary rewards in a bleak life with little nondrug pleasure also make sense as an effective part of treatment. Contingency management research has shown this for years and you can even get users to choose money over drugs in the lab.

Sadly, society wants to see addicts as hedonistic scum so the idea of paying people to stop using is a political nonstarter in most places. In the UK, today, the ACMD is meeting to decide a question that the data decided long ago— should people be able to stay on methadone without time limits? If you want people to stay alive, have less disease and commit less crime, the answer to that is YES. But politicians don’t like that, they see maintenance as giving addicts what they want— and I’m sure this will be received equally well.

They want to spend my tax dollars on paying people to not to do what they shouldn’t be doing anyway?

Adding to your ideas regarding sobriety; not only does sobriety represent a loss of those wonderful chemical rewards, and not only does it exist in as an off-in-the-future goal, it is also impossible to remember what it feels like when you’re addicted. Seriously, you know that it’s something you used to be, and you know that for abstract reasons you want to get there, but like Heaven it becomes a mere article of faith. Money is real. Especially if you have an expensive habit.

However, “sobriety” is an abstract concept, an off-in-the-future idea. They might want it, but it is distant and not so real. Paying for the clean tests makes that immediate goal have an immediate reward, which they pay attention to. It reinforces soemthing they already want.

Moreover, most users do have serious cash flow problems, as they try to maintain an often expensive habit. So money is definitely real to them.

The other thing to add is a framing effect. Sobriety is generally a state defined by loss of something they like – and that means its value gets discounted. It’s also risky, not a sure thing.

In contrast, a clean drug test has a positive reward, the money, associated with it. They are gaining something, and that is an easier choice for them than the risky choice to “maintain sobriety.”

The key to CM’s success is that it takes advantage of this propensity for ‘good’ ends. Money and vouchers compared to, say, not losing one’s job or going to jail, are more proximal rewards and thus more tangible. Rather than just trying to improve executive control, CM also engages the reward system to help redirect behaviour.

Thus, it uses their preexisting impulsivity to help them – because being impulsive isn’t always a ‘bad’ thing.

The key to CM’s success is that it takes advantage of this propensity for ‘good’ ends. Money and vouchers compared to, say, not losing one’s job or going to jail, are more proximal rewards and thus more tangible. Rather than just trying to improve executive control, CM also engages the reward system to help redirect behaviour.
Thus, it uses their preexisting impulsivity to help them – because being impulsive isn’t always a ‘bad’ thing.