Abstract: The computerized psychology intervention is a primarily self-guided intervention program, which is executed by means of a prescriptive online program operated via the computer and used by addicts（Litvin, Abrantes, & Brown,2013）. The intervention programs are based on the face-to-face intervention theories and principles. The most commonly reported interventions are computerized cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), motivational enhancement therapy (MET), and contingency management (CM) among the interventions. All these interventions are effective in substance addicts, but there also exist some unresolved questions. Most computerized CBT only evaluate if it is effective or not in substance addicts, but not the acquisition of cognitive skills（Ritterband, Andersson, Christensen, Carlbring, & Cuijpers ,2006）. The computerized MET is easily acceptable for substance addicts, it emphasis more on one’s own role in the process of the intervention. The purpose of MET is to inspire the individual’s innate motivation to withdrawal, but substance addicts always lack innate motivation, so it makes MET more commonly used combining with other therapies, and hard to be an independent treatment program（Ondersma, Svikis, Thacker, Beatty&Lockhart,2014）. The computerized CM always associated with reward, which makes it cost higher and greatly restricts it’s implementation. To solve this problem, researchers used deposit contract in traditional CM intervention, researchers can still try to use this method in computerized CM（Dallery, Glenn, & Raiff,2007;Dallery & Raiff,2011）. The researchers evaluate the effectiveness of computerized psychology intervention for addiction on the basis of measured or self-reported client behavior and diagnostic indicators along with the changes in overall functioning and life satisfaction. Researches suggest that computerized interventions impact outcomes via similar potential mechanisms as in traditional interventions, with the exception of substance use outcomes being associated with changes in the quality of coping skills. The most frequent potential mechanisms detected were self-efficacy for tobacco abstinence and perceived peer drinking for alcohol abstinence. Generally, clinical professionals always integrate two or more kinds of interventions together to produce duplicate effect. Although computerized interventions have their own advantages to substance addicts, the limitations also do. On the one hand, there was no study comparing different interventions directly, and researches try to verify the effectiveness of the intervention, but don’t think about that if computerized interventions can cover the shortage of traditional interventions. There also exist some problems in evaluation method, for example, self-report contents are relatively subjective, it will influence the validity of the study, and the measurement of physiological criterion is also not unified in different studies. Of course, computerized therapy also offers several advantages including availability, convenience and accessibility, cost-effectiveness, anonymity and privacy, which are particularly relevant for those seeking help for addictions（Marsch, Bickel, & Badger,2007）. In the future, researchers should pay attention to the following three aspects. First, combine the substance abstinence interventions and the ecological momentary assessment which mainly focuses on the collection of data, develop the computerized assistant software both on computer and mobile phone. Second, researchers should further find out whether all computerized interventions are equally effective across the spectrum of substances, and evaluate the feasibility and limitation of the interventions to addicts. Third, conduct cognitive training for substance addicts before computerized intervention to improve the effect of intervention, because the training shows recovery effect on cognitive function and brain injury.