Cited by 29Regulation of Appetite and ObesityNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Explicit wanting and liking for palatable snacks are differentially affected by change in physiological state, and differentially related to salivation and hunger

Stevenson, Richard J., Francis, Heather M., Attuquayefio, Tuki, Ockert, Candice·2017·Physiology & Behavior

Abstract

Incentive salience theory (IST) suggests that 'wanting' and liking are dissociable processes. We argue that explicit measures of wanting in humans can reflect the impact of implicit 'wanting' as envisaged by IST, suggesting that dissociations should also be evident for explicit judgments of wanting and liking. To test this, participants were asked to make ratings of these variables for 8 palatable snack foods - and in a related test salivation rate was also assessed. Participants viewed and sniffed each snack food and rated wanting, and then sampled it and rated liking and whether they wanted more of it. Following a lunch eaten to satiety, and composed in part of half of the palatable snack foods, participants repeated their evaluations of the snack foods (and salivation rate). Liking changed less across lunch than wanting and want more ratings, the last-mentioned changing the most. Change in liking was associated with change in salivation rate, independent of wanting, and change in wanting was associated with change in hunger independent of liking. We argue these dissociations are consistent with 'wanting' influencing explicit wanting, and that want more ratings may represent a 'purer' measure of IST 'wanting'.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.10.007

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The targeted effect size was chosen based on findings from studies employing CIC paradigms for drug craving, food cravings, and internet gaming craving, which report medium-to-large effect sizes in cue reactivity.

    “The targeted-effect size was chosen based on findings from studies employing CIC paradigms for drug craving52, food cravings25,37,53,54 and internet gaming craving27, which report medium-to-large effect sizes in cue reactivity52.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 29

Authors
Stevenson, R. J., Francis, H. M., Attuquayefio, T., & Ockert, C.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Stevenson, Richard J.
Venue
Physiology & Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
182
Pages
101-106
ISSN
0031-9384 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2762936856
Cited by
29
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Physiology & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
Funders
the ARC (DP150100105)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
liking, salivary secretion, hunger, physiological state, food reward, satiety, food evaluation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Feeding Behavior, Female, Food Preferences, Humans, Hunger, Male, Obesity, Salivation, Young Adult, Snacks

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review