{
 "id": "ep3praxh9d",
 "slug": "conditioned-place-preference",
 "title": "Conditioned place preference",
 "updated": "2026-10-15",
 "topic_path": [
  {
   "id": "life",
   "label": "Life and health",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life"
  },
  {
   "id": "life.health",
   "label": "Human health and medicine",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health"
  }
 ],
 "geo": [
  {
   "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health",
   "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000: Human health and medicine",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health",
   "path": [
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo",
     "label": "Non-geographic",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946",
     "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life",
     "label": "Life and health",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health",
     "label": "Human health and medicine",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health"
    }
   ]
  }
 ],
 "excerpt": "Conditioned place preference (CPP) is a behavioral paradigm measuring the rewarding or aversive effects of drugs by testing whether animals spend more time in drug-paired environments, widely used in addiction research.",
 "snippet": "Conditioned place preference (CPP) is a behavioral paradigm measuring the rewarding or aversive effects of drugs by testing whether animals spend more time in drug-paired environments, widely used in addiction research.",
 "node": "life.health",
 "markdown": "# Conditioned place preference\n\nConditioned place preference (CPP) is a behavioral paradigm that measures the rewarding or aversive motivational effects of a stimulus, typically a drug, by testing whether an animal spends more time in an environment previously paired with that stimulus.<sup>[1](https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.279)</sup> A conditioned place preference is scored when subjects spend significantly more time in the drug-paired compartment than the vehicle-paired compartment; a conditioned place aversion (CPA) is scored when they spend significantly more time in the vehicle-paired compartment.<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup> Because a single assay detects both reward and aversion, CPP is used widely in addiction neuroscience and has been established in rodents, flies, *C. elegans*, planaria, primates, and humans.<sup>[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7550834/)</sup> [Cocaine](https://www.edgepedia.org/cocaine), amphetamine, methamphetamine, morphine, nicotine, ethanol, caffeine, and delta-9-THC all produce CPP under appropriate conditions.<sup>[4](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=psychfacpub)</sup>\n\n| Key fact | Detail |\n|---|---|\n| What a preference score means | Significantly more time in the drug-paired compartment; the reverse pattern defines CPA<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup> |\n| Standard protocol | Three phases (habituation/pretest, conditioning, choice test); a typical mouse experiment lasts 2 weeks<sup>[1](https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.279)</sup> |\n| Dose example | Nicotine produces CPP in rats at 0.4–0.8 mg/kg, whereas higher doses produce CPA<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup> |\n| Species range | Rodents, flies, *C. elegans*, planaria, primates, and humans<sup>[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7550834/)</sup> |\n| Score calculation | Test-day drug-paired time minus habituation time, or minus vehicle-paired time on test day<sup>[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7550834/)</sup> |\n| Key dissociation | D2 receptor antagonists minimally affect cocaine CPP but readily attenuate cocaine self-administration<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup> |\n\n## How it works\n\nThe paradigm is grounded in Pavlovian conditioning: the drug acts as the unconditioned stimulus and the drug-paired environment becomes a conditioned stimulus. Dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens are elevated when rats are placed in the drug-paired environment compared with the nondrug-paired environment.<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup> Within this framework, CPP reflects a preference for a context due to its contiguous association with a drug stimulus, a learning process that is fundamentally distinct from drug self-administration, where the animal operantly consumes the drug.<sup>[4](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=psychfacpub)</sup>\n\nA preference score therefore represents learned context valuation, not drug intake. The main alternative interpretation, novelty seeking, is weakened by three-context experiments in which rats prefer the drug-paired context over a novel one.<sup>[4](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=psychfacpub)</sup>\n\n## How it is done\n\nThe standard mouse protocol has three phases: habituation or a pretest, conditioning of an association between the drug and a tactile or visual stimulus, and a choice test between the drug-associated cue and a neutral cue; a typical experiment lasts 2 weeks.<sup>[1](https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.279)</sup> In the common three-compartment apparatus, the outer compartments differ in cues such as white versus black walls, pine versus corn bedding, or grid versus cross-grid flooring, the center compartment is unpaired, and gates allow free passage during test; daily sessions alternate drug and vehicle for 2 or 3 days each before a test session records time in each outer compartment.<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup> Drug and vehicle conditioning sessions occur on the same day, separated by 4–6 h, or on alternating days.<sup>[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7550834/)</sup>\n\nA published 10-day rat screen illustrates the timing: Day 1 is a 20-min baseline with free exploration, Days 2–9 alternate 20-min vehicle and drug confinements, and Day 10 is a drug-free 20-min posttest with the door open; rats spending more than 75% of baseline time in one chamber are excluded.<sup>[5](https://pspp.ninds.nih.gov/TestDescription/TestCPP)</sup>\n\nCommon analyses compare CS+ time at posttest to pretest (difference score \\( \\mathrm{CS+}_{\\mathrm{post}} - \\mathrm{CS+}_{\\mathrm{pre}} \\)) or to CS− time at posttest (\\( \\mathrm{CS+}_{\\mathrm{post}} - \\mathrm{CS-}_{\\mathrm{post}} \\)), or use a preference ratio \\( \\mathrm{CS+}_{\\mathrm{post}} / (\\mathrm{CS+}_{\\mathrm{post}} + \\mathrm{CS-}_{\\mathrm{post}}) \\); these measures are highly correlated overall but can yield discrepant interpretations.<sup>[6](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484009/)</sup> Scores in practice are calculated as test-day drug-paired time minus habituation time, or minus vehicle-paired time; spending more than 80% of time in one compartment is a common exclusion criterion,<sup>[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7550834/)</sup> although the NINDS screen excludes rats spending more than 75% of baseline time in one chamber.<sup>[5](https://pspp.ninds.nih.gov/TestDescription/TestCPP)</sup> The three-compartment apparatus controls for novelty seeking, but current analyses often fail to track time in the neutral compartment.<sup>[6](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484009/)</sup>\n\n## Origin\n\nThe earliest antecedent cited in reviews of the method involved morphine-dependent chimpanzees choosing a box that hid a morphine syringe.<sup>[4](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=psychfacpub)</sup> The first place-conditioning study, published by Horace D. Beach in the Canadian Journal of Psychology in 1957, found that morphine-dependent rats preferred a Y-maze arm paired with morphine, and that the morphine-paired arm was preferred even in non-dependent rats, showing that physical dependence is not a prerequisite.<sup>[7](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0083703)</sup> Later morphine place-conditioning reports established time spent in a drug-paired context relative to a saline-paired context as the index of preference, and this general procedure was adopted in essentially all subsequent CPP studies; an influential review of the era described CPP as a rapid and inexpensive technique for measuring drug reinforcement.<sup>[4](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=psychfacpub)</sup> The field's growth was mapped by cross-indexed bibliographies covering 1957–1991<sup>[8](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7634%2805%2980228-3)</sup> and 1992–1996,<sup>[9](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7634%2898%2900012-8)</sup> and by comprehensive reviews of drug effects published in 1998<sup>[10](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-0082%2898%2900060-4)</sup> and updated in 2007.<sup>[11](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2007.00070.x)</sup>\n\n## Variants\n\nBiased versus unbiased designs differ in compartment assignment. In a biased design, baseline preference is assessed first and the drug is paired with each subject's least-preferred compartment; in an unbiased design, the CS+ compartment is randomized across subjects.<sup>[6](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484009/)</sup> Nicotine produced CPP when paired with the least-preferred side but neither CPP nor CPA when paired with the most-preferred side, although for morphine at least, biased and unbiased designs show no outcome difference.<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup> Two-compartment forced-choice designs carry bias risk, whereas three-compartment designs offer a neutral center area; CPP outcomes also depend on species, strain, route of administration, timing, dose, and apparatus.<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup>\n\nSpecies extensions include a zebrafish protocol using a two-compartment tank with visually distinct halves, which requires only a single drug exposure and completes in about 2 days.<sup>[12](https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2010.201)</sup> In reinstatement versions, after CPP acquisition and extinction, re-exposure to the drug or a stressful event induces reinstatement, and drug primes can reinstate both CPP and CPA.<sup>[13](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4328%2800%2900239-4)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[14](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0091-3057%2800%2900222-7)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[15](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016501730800101X)</sup>\n\n## Applications\n\nCPP is used to index the rewarding effects of drugs across classes,<sup>[4](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=psychfacpub)</sup> to screen medications, and to study diminished reward (anhedonia) and aversion with protocols designed to minimize training time and maximize sensitivity to reward, diminished reward, and aversion.<sup>[16](https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-379-8:243)</sup> The reinstatement version links CPP to relapse-like behavior research, with most studies employing morphine and cocaine.<sup>[15](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016501730800101X)</sup> Drug-context preferences can persist 12 weeks without additional drug exposure, and robust CPP has been observed after 28 days of abstinence.<sup>[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7550834/)</sup>\n\nHuman studies exist: amphetamine-induced place preference in humans was reported in a 2008 study by Emma Childs and Harriet de Wit.<sup>[17](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.016)</sup> Later human work showed that acute subjective responses to 20 mg d-amphetamine predicted changes in room liking after conditioning; context effects are drug-class specific, as shown for alcohol.<sup>[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7550834/)</sup>\n\n## Limitations and alternatives\n\nStated advantages of CPP are that it tests animals drug-free, is sensitive to both reward and aversion, allows simultaneous locomotor measurement, adapts to many species, and is relatively rapid and inexpensive; however, its dose-effect patterns are variable and often difficult to characterize. Stated limitations are novelty-seeking confounds, cumbersomeness for graded dose-effect curves, difficulty interpreting pre-existing context preferences, and lack of face validity as a model of human drug reward.<sup>[4](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=psychfacpub)</sup> Drug effects on locomotion or sedation, and increased novelty of the drug-paired compartment, can confound the preference measure.<sup>[18](https://borc.unl.edu/equipment/animal-behavior-research/place-conditioning-preference/)</sup> The procedure often lacks dose-response effects, making drug efficacy and potency difficult to compare.<sup>[15](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016501730800101X)</sup>\n\nAgainst self-administration, the two measures dissociate: some drugs produce CPP but are not self-administered (LSD, buspirone, pentylenetetrazole), others are self-administered but do not produce CPP (pentobarbital, phencyclidine), and D2 antagonists minimally affect cocaine CPP while readily attenuating cocaine self-administration.<sup>[2](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)</sup>\n\n## References\n\n1. [Christopher L Cunningham, Christina M Gremel, Peter A Groblewski (2006). Drug-induced conditioned place preference and aversion in mice. Nature Protocols.](https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.279)\n2. [Chapter 4: Conditioned Place Preference (NCBI Bookshelf)](https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK5229/)\n3. [Drug-Induced Conditioned Place Preference and Its Practical Use in Substance Use Disorder Research (Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 2020; also hosted at frontiersin.org)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7550834/)\n4. [Conditioned place preference: what does it add to our preclinical understanding of drug reward? (Bardo & Bevins, 2000, Psychopharmacology)](https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=psychfacpub)\n5. [RAT CONDITIONED PLACE PREFERENCE (CPP), NINDS Psychoactive Substance Screening Pipeline (PsychoGenics)](https://pspp.ninds.nih.gov/TestDescription/TestCPP)\n6. [Quantifying conditioned place preference: a review of current analyses and a proposal for a novel approach (2023)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10484009/)\n7. [Horace D. Beach (1957). Morphine addiction in rats.. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie.](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0083703)\n8. [Trends in place preference conditioning with a cross-indexed bibliography; 1957–1991 (Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 1993)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7634%2805%2980228-3)\n9. [Continued Trends in the Conditioned Place Preference Literature from 1992 to 1996, Inclusive, with a Cross-Indexed Bibliography (Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 1998)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7634%2898%2900012-8)\n10. [Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference paradigm: a comprehensive review of drug effects, recent progress and new issues (Progress in Neurobiology, 1998)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-0082%2898%2900060-4)\n11. [Thomas M. Tzschentke (2007). REVIEW ON CPP: Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade. Addiction Biology.](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2007.00070.x)\n12. [Priya Mathur, Billy Lau, Su Guo (2011). Conditioned place preference behavior in zebrafish. Nature Protocols.](https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2010.201)\n13. [Cocaine-induced conditioned place preference: reinstatement by priming injections of cocaine after extinction (Behavioural Brain Research, 2000)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4328%2800%2900239-4)\n14. [Reinstatement of Both a Conditioned Place Preference and a Conditioned Place Aversion with Drug Primes (Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 2000)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0091-3057%2800%2900222-7)\n15. [Neurobiological mechanisms of the reinstatement of drug-conditioned place preference](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016501730800101X)\n16. [William A. Carlezon (2003). Place Conditioning to Study Drug Reward and Aversion. Humana Press eBooks.](https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-379-8:243)\n17. [Emma Childs, Harriet de Wit (2008). Amphetamine-Induced Place Preference in Humans. Biological Psychiatry.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.016)\n18. [Place Conditioning Preference, Biomedical and Obesity Research Core, University of Nebraska–Lincoln](https://borc.unl.edu/equipment/animal-behavior-research/place-conditioning-preference/)\n\n---\n*Topic: Encyclopedia › Life and health › Human health and medicine*\n\n*Initially written Sep 29, 2026 · Edited: Oct 15, 2026*\n\n*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*\n\nLicense: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\n",
 "same_as": [],
 "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference",
 "markdown_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference.md",
 "license": {
  "name": "Edgepedia Community License 1.0",
  "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license",
  "summary": "Free with credit, commercial use included. AI training is open to everyone. For other uses, organizations over USD 100M in revenue or 100M monthly users license separately.",
  "spdx": "LicenseRef-Edgepedia-Community-1.0"
 },
 "credit": "\"Conditioned place preference\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.",
 "credit_md": "\"[Conditioned place preference](https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference)\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), [https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference](https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference). [Edgepedia Community License 1.0](https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license).",
 "credit_html": "\"<a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference\">Conditioned place preference</a>\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), <a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference\">https://www.edgepedia.org/conditioned-place-preference</a>. <a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\">Edgepedia Community License 1.0</a>.",
 "speakable": "Conditioned place preference is a behavioral paradigm measuring the rewarding or aversive effects of drugs by testing whether animals spend more time in drug-paired environments, widely used in addiction research."
}