The Mythical Number Two

Clinical Usefulness of the Iowa Gambling Task in Severe Alcohol Use Disorders: Link with Relapse and Cognitive‐Physiological Deficits

“…Addictive states have thus been centrally conceptualized as “decision‐making diseases”: The joint influence of increased substance‐related reactivity (i.e., limbic overactivation, manifested by craving and attentional biases) and reduced executive control (i.e., prefrontal underactivation, leading to reduced inhibition abilities) drives patients to promote drug‐related choices, leading to addiction persistence (Wiers and Stacy, ). While this classical dual‐process view (Stacy and Wiers, ) is currently challenged (Hommel and Wiers, ; Melnikoff and Bargh, ), the most influential neurocognitive models of addictions still consider altered decision making as a key theoretical and clinical factor (e.g., Koob and Volkow, ; Volkow and Baler, ; Wise and Koob, ).…”

The motivational unconscious

“…Following earlier critiques (e.g., Moors, 2016), Melnikoff and Bargh (2018) have noted that there is imperfect alignment among the canonical features of automatic processing and that even the individual features contain some inconsistencies. With respect to efficiency, for example, Stroop interference-perhaps the cardinal example of automatic processing-is increased by loading spatial working memory but eliminated by loading verbal working memory.…”

“…With respect to efficiency, for example, Stroop interference-perhaps the cardinal example of automatic processing-is increased by loading spatial working memory but eliminated by loading verbal working memory. Melnikoff and Bargh (2018) argue that, at the very least, dual-process theories need firmer empirical grounding,…”

How associative is evaluative conditioning? An empirical investigation at the attitude acquisition and attitude change stages

“…Second, the criteria do not necessarily perfectly align (Bargh, 1994;Moors & De Houwer, 2006). In theory, by considering four sets of binary features, one could expect 2 4 = 16 categories of processes (Melnikoff & Bargh, 2018). I will describe more precisely each of the four automatic features as well as their role in EC in a following section.…”