Testing the validity of implicit measures of wanting and liking

Abstract

Background and objectives: Over the last decade, there has been a surge of studies examining implicit processes underlying addiction. Some implicit measures are assumed to reflect "liking" whereas other implicit measures are assumed to reflect "wanting". There is, however, little evidence to back up this claim. We examined whether implicit and explicit measures of wanting and of liking are differentially sensitive to manipulations of wanting and expected that these manipulations would affect primarily measures of wanting. Methods: Smokers and non-smokers performed both implicit and explicit measures that are assumed to assess wanting and liking for nicotine. Smokers were tested once immediately after smoking, and once after 12 hours of nicotine-deprivation. Results: IAT results suggested that smokers showed more implicit liking for nicotine when they were deprived than when they were satiated, whereas there were no differences in wanting. Smokers also seemed to show both more implicit wanting and more implicit liking for nicotine compared to non-smokers.Explicit measures did yield the expected results in that smokers reported to want nicotine more when they were deprived, whereas there were smaller differences in liking. Conclusions:We found little support for the assumption that implicit measures of wanting and liking capture different processes. Researchers should thus be cautious in drawing conclusions about wanting and liking on the basis of these measures.

Implicit measures of “wanting” and “liking” in humans

“…Because the nature of the (attribute) items can determine the conceptualization of the (attribute) labels (i.e., "positive" and "negative"; see Govan & Williams, 2004), it is unlikely that the attribute labels in the valence IAT are conceptualized by participants in line with the conceptualization of "liking" in IST. Similar arguments can be made to question the validity of the liking IAT of Tibboel et al (2011).…”

“…Furthermore, research by Tibboel et al (2011) provides no clear support for the conclusion that wanting and liking IATs specifically capture "wanting" or "liking", respectively. Finally, approach-avoid IAT scores tend to correlate with some addiction-related variables, but not with others.…”

“…Because "wanting" is assumed to cause drug cues to become more arousing, the arousal IAT was assumed to be a valid measure of "wanting". Second, Tibboel et al (2011) designed a liking IAT, in which the attribute labels were "I like" and "I do not like" and a wanting IAT, in which the attribute labels were "I want" and "I do not want". They reasoned that these labels better reflected the processes proposed by Robinson and Berridge.…”

“…To complicate things even further, other research has shown that valence IATs were positively correlated with prospective alcohol consumption (e.g., Houben & Wiers, 2007a. For the wanting IAT, Tibboel et al (2011) calculated correlations with explicit measures for deprived and sated smokers. When smokers were deprived, they found positive correlations between the wanting IAT scores and ratings of arousal, valence, and wanting, general smoking urges, and the urge to smoke a cigarette after the session.…”

“…"Wanting" can be manipulated by, for instance, depriving participants from a substance for a sufficient amount of time (e.g., Tibboel et al, 2011) or by a craving induction (e.g., Dewit & Chutuape, 1993). "Liking", on the other hand, can be manipulated by flavor evaluative conditioning (e.g., Wardle, Mitchell, & Lovibond, 2007).…”