Implicit ‘wanting’ without implicit ‘liking’: A test of incentive-sensitization-theory in the context of smoking addiction using the wanting-implicit-association-test (W-IAT)

Grigutsch, Laura Anne; Lewe, Gesa; Rothermund, Klaus; Koranyi, Nicolas

doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2019.01.002

Cited by 22 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The validity of the W-IAT was further corroborated in a study that compared smokers’ and nonsmokers’ “wanting” and “liking” for smoking cues (Grigutsch et al, 2019). This study revealed that the W-IAT is better suited to discriminate between smokers and nonsmokers than a standard valence IAT tapping “liking.” Specifically, W-IAT scores were positive for smokers but negative for nonsmokers, while “liking”-IAT scores were negative for both groups.…”

Section: Issue 2: Distinguishing Between Liking and Wantingmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Furthermore, in line with the notion of an addiction-related decoupling of “wanting” and “liking,” the correlation of W-IAT and “liking”-IAT was significantly weaker for smokers than for nonsmokers. In contrast to previous attempts at this matter, the W-IAT thus proved to measure actual “wanting” instead of purely semantic associations (c.f., Palfai and Ostafin, 2003; Tibboel et al, 2011, 2015a) both in situations where “liking” is high (Koranyi et al, 2017) and in situations where “liking” is low (Grigutsch et al, 2019).…”

Section: Issue 2: Distinguishing Between Liking and Wantingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two decades ago, the introduction of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) sparked enthusiastic reactions. With implicit measures like the IAT, researchers hoped to finally be able to bridge the gap between self-reported attitudes on one hand and behavior on the other. Twenty years of research and several meta-analyses later, however, we have to conclude that neither the IAT nor its derivatives have fulfilled these expectations. Their predictive value for behavioral criteria is weak and their incremental validity over and above self-report measures is negligible. In our review, we present an overview of explanations for these unsatisfactory findings and delineate promising ways forward. Over the years, several reasons for the IAT’s weak predictive validity have been proposed. They point to four potentially problematic features: First, the IAT is by no means a pure measure of individual differences in associations but suffers from extraneous influences like recoding. Hence, the predictive validity of IAT-scores should not be confused with the predictive validity of associations. Second, with the IAT, we usually aim to measure evaluation (“liking”) instead of motivation (“wanting”). Yet, behavior might be determined much more often by the latter than the former. Third, the IAT focuses on measuring associations instead of propositional beliefs and thus taps into a construct that might be too unspecific to account for behavior. Finally, studies on predictive validity are often characterized by a mismatch between predictor and criterion (e.g., while behavior is highly context-specific, the IAT usually takes into account neither the situation nor the domain). Recent research, however, also revealed advances addressing each of these problems, namely (1) procedural and analytical advances to control for recoding in the IAT, (2) measurement procedures to assess implicit wanting, (3) measurement procedures to assess implicit beliefs, and (4) approaches to increase the fit between implicit measures and behavioral criteria (e.g., by incorporating contextual information). Implicit measures like the IAT hold an enormous potential. In order to allow them to fulfill this potential, however, we have to refine our understanding of these measures, and we should incorporate recent conceptual and methodological advancements. This review provides specific recommendations on how to do so.

show abstract

Section: Issue 2: Distinguishing Between Liking and Wantingmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Issue 2: Distinguishing Between Liking and Wantingmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our study, we used indirect response time-based measures of wanting and liking , namely, the Wanting-IAT and the Liking-IAT (or standard valence-based IAT). These measures operate on the basis of automatic stimulus–response compatibility effects (De Houwer et al, 2009; Koranyi et al, 2017) and have been validated (Koranyi et al, 2017) and used previously in research on wanting–liking dissociations in addiction (Grigutsch et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To overcome the limitations of previous research on wanting and liking in humans, behavioral measures have been developed recently that aim to measure wanting and liking without relying on self-reports. Most notably, two different versions of the Implicit-Association Test (IAT), namely, the Wanting-IAT (W-IAT) and the Liking-IAT (L-IAT, or standard valence-based IAT), have been shown to be valid indicators of wanting and liking (Grigutsch et al, 2019; Koranyi et al, 2017). In an IAT, participants sort target stimuli into target categories (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dissociation between wanting and liking for coffee in heavy drinkers

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is an ongoing discussion about the addictive strength of caffeine. According to the incentive-sensitization theory, the development and the maintenance of drug addiction is the result of a selective sensitization of brain regions that are relevant for wanting without a corresponding increase in liking. Dissociations of wanting and liking have been observed with a wide range of drugs in animals. For human subjects, results are inconclusive, which is possibly due to invalid operationalizations of wanting and liking. Aim: The present study examined dissociations of wanting and liking for coffee in heavy and low/non-consumers with newly developed and validated response time-based assessment procedures for wanting and liking. Methods: For this study 24 heavy and 32 low/non-consumers of coffee completed two versions of the Implicit-Association Test (IAT), one of which has been developed and validated recently to assess wanting for coffee, whereas the other reflects an indicator of liking for coffee. Results: Results revealed a significant interaction between group (heavy vs. low/non-consumers) and IAT type ( wanting vs. liking) indicating that heavy coffee drinkers differed from low/non-consumers by displaying increased wanting but not liking for coffee. Interpretation: These data confirm that heavy coffee consumption is associated with strong wanting despite low liking for coffee, indicating that wanting becomes independent from liking through repeated consumption of caffeine. This dissociation provides a possible explanation for the widespread and stable consumption of caffeine-containing beverages.

show abstract