Cited by 97Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsEmotions and Moral BehaviorExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Lusting While Loathing: Parallel Counterdriving of Wanting and Liking

Litt, Ab, Khan, Uzma, Shiv, Baba·2010·Psychological Science

Abstract

We show how being “jilted”—that is, being thwarted from obtaining a desired outcome—can concurrently increase desire to obtain the outcome, but reduce its actual attractiveness. Thus, people can come to both want something more and like it less. Two experiments illustrate such disjunctions following jilting experiences. In Experiment 1, participants who failed to win a prize were willing to pay more for it than those who won it, but were also more likely to trade it away when they ultimately obtained it. In Experiment 2, failure to obtain an expected reward led to increased choice, but also negatively biased evaluation, of an item that was merely similar to that reward. Such disjunctions were exhibited particularly by individuals low in intensity of felt affect, a finding supporting an emotional basis for relative harmonization of wanting and liking. These results demonstrate how dissociable psychological subsystems for wanting and liking can be driven in opposing directions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797609355633

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 conative dissonance account can explain why core desires are stable: constant frustration of core desires makes them stronger.

    “Given that for much of our waking life, our core desires are frustrated (as we are constantly confronted by our incompetence, immorality, and inconsistency), this constant desire frustration explains the stability of our core desires.”

    From Conative Dissonance (2026) · cites this paper as Litt et al., 2010

  • What definitions of wanting have in common is that they describe emotion.

    “Others speak of wanting in slightly different terms—but what the definitions have in common is that they describe emotion (e.g., Litt et al., 2010, Overskeid, 2000).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Litt, A., Khan, U., & Shiv, B.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Litt, Ab
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2009-12-10
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
118-125
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2129448536
Cited by
97
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
desire, liking, disappointment, willingness to pay, emotional intensity, emotion regulation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Affect, Choice Behavior, Female, Frustration, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Rejection, Psychology, Reward, Video Games

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