Literature DB >> 26432503

Implicit measures of "wanting" and "liking" in humans.

Helen Tibboel1, Jan De Houwer2, Bram Van Bockstaele3.   

Abstract

Incentive Sensitization Theory (IST; e.g., Robinson and Berridge, 1993. Brain Res. Rev., 18, 291; Robinson and Berridge, 2003 Trends Neurosci., 26, 507) suggests that a common dopamine system that deals with incentive salience attribution is affected by different types of drugs. Repeated drug use will sensitize this neural system, which means that drugs increasingly trigger the experience of incentive salience or "wanting". Importantly, Robinson and Berridge stress that there is a dissociation between drug "wanting" (the unconscious attribution of incentive salience) and drug "liking" (the unconscious hedonic experience when one consumes drugs). Whereas the former plays an essential role in the development and maintenance of drug addiction, the latter does not. Although this model was based mainly on research with non-human animals, more recently the dissociation between "wanting" and "liking" has been examined in humans as well. A widely used and promising means of studying these processes are behavioral implicit measures such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT), different types of Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) tasks, and Affective Simon Tasks (AST). IST makes the clear prediction that (1) there should be a positive correlation between indices of "wanting" (e.g., drug consumption) and implicit "wanting" scores. Similarly, there should be a positive correlation between indices of "liking" (e.g., various expressions of subjective pleasure) and implicit "liking" scores; (2) there should be higher "wanting" scores in substance abusers or frequent substance users compared to non-users or infrequent users, and there should be no differences in "liking" between these groups (or even less "liking" in frequent substance users); (3) manipulations of "wanting" should affect implicit "wanting" scores whereas manipulations of "liking" should affect implicit "liking" scores. However, studies that tested these hypotheses did not produce equivocal results. To shed light on these discrepancies, we first discuss the different definitions of "wanting" and "liking" and the different tests that have been used to assess these processes. Then, we discuss whether it is reasonable to assume that these tests are valid measures of "wanting" and "liking" and we review correlational, quasi-experimental, and experimental studies that inform us about this issue. Finally, we discuss the future potential of implicit measures in research on IST and make several recommendations to improve both theory and methodology.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Addiction; Craving; Implicit attitudes; Implicit processes; Incentive sensitization; Liking; Wanting

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26432503     DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev        ISSN: 0149-7634            Impact factor:   8.989


  10 in total

1.  Altered interaction with environmental reinforcers in major depressive disorder: Relationship to anhedonia.

Authors:  Joanna E Szczepanik; Maura L Furey; Allison C Nugent; Ioline D Henter; Carlos A Zarate; Carl W Lejuez
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  2017-08-03

2.  Quantifying preference for social stimuli in young children using two tasks on a mobile platform.

Authors:  Indu Dubey; Simon Brett; Liliana Ruta; Rahul Bishain; Sharat Chandran; Supriya Bhavnani; Matthew K Belmonte; Georgia Lockwood Estrin; Mark Johnson; Teodora Gliga; Bhismadev Chakrabarti
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 3.752

3.  The Role of Impulsivity and Reward Deficiency in "Liking" and "Wanting" of Potentially Problematic Behaviors and Substance Uses.

Authors:  Domonkos File; Beáta Bőthe; Bálint File; Zsolt Demetrovics
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-04-25       Impact factor: 5.435

4.  The paraventricular thalamus is a critical mediator of top-down control of cue-motivated behavior in rats.

Authors:  Paolo Campus; Ignacio R Covelo; Youngsoo Kim; Aram Parsegian; Brittany N Kuhn; Sofia A Lopez; John F Neumaier; Susan M Ferguson; Leah C Solberg Woods; Martin Sarter; Shelly B Flagel
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-09-10       Impact factor: 8.140

5.  Development of a Self-Report Measure of Reward Sensitivity:A Test in Current and Former Smokers.

Authors:  John R Hughes; Peter W Callas; Jeff S Priest; Jean-Francois Etter; Alan J Budney; Stacey C Sigmon
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 4.244

6.  Translating preclinical models of alcohol seeking and consumption into the human laboratory using intravenous alcohol self-administration paradigms.

Authors:  Melissa A Cyders; Martin H Plawecki; Zachary T Whitt; Ann E K Kosobud; David A Kareken; Ulrich S Zimmermann; Sean J O'Connor
Journal:  Addict Biol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 4.280

7.  Diabetes type 2 risk gene Dusp8 is associated with altered sucrose reward behavior in mice and humans.

Authors:  Peter Baumann; Sonja C Schriever; Stephanie Kullmann; Annemarie Zimprich; Andreas Peter; Valerie Gailus-Durner; Helmut Fuchs; Martin Hrabe de Angelis; Wolfgang Wurst; Matthias H Tschöp; Martin Heni; Sabine M Hölter; Paul T Pfluger
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 2.708

Review 8.  Predicting Behavior With Implicit Measures: Disillusioning Findings, Reasonable Explanations, and Sophisticated Solutions.

Authors:  Franziska Meissner; Laura Anne Grigutsch; Nicolas Koranyi; Florian Müller; Klaus Rothermund
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-11-08

9.  Confirmation of interpersonal expectations is intrinsically rewarding.

Authors:  Niv Reggev; Anoushka Chowdhary; Jason P Mitchell
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-30       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Food Reward after Bariatric Surgery and Weight Loss Outcomes: An Exploratory Study.

Authors:  Erika Guyot; Julie-Anne Nazare; Pauline Oustric; Maud Robert; Emmanuel Disse; Anestis Dougkas; Sylvain Iceta
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 5.717

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.