Lusting While Loathing: Parallel Counterdriving of Wanting and Liking
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Can Damasio's Somatic Marker Hypothesis Explain More Than Its Originator Will Admit? (2021) · cites this paper as Litt et al., 2010
Cites
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261737 · Cited by 3,194 · cited 1× · see citing works
“down, thus reducing or even reversing the endowment effect (Coursey, Hovis, & Schulze, 1987; Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1990 ).”
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(02)80008-9 · Cited by 1,386 · see citing works
Value from hedonic experience and engagement
Higgins, E. T. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.439 · Cited by 949 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Roles of "wanting" and "liking" in motivating behavior: gambling, food, and drug addictions
Robinson, M. J. F., Fischer, A. M., Ahuja, A., Lesser, E. N., & Maniates, H. (2015) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2015_387 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Measuring wanting and liking from animals to humans: a systematic review
Pool, E., Sennwald, V., Delplanque, S., Brosch, T., & Sander, D. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.01.006 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Can Damasio's Somatic Marker Hypothesis Explain More Than Its Originator Will Admit?
Overskeid, G. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.607310 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Nanay, B. (2026) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.70258
- Authors
- Litt, A., Khan, U., & Shiv, B.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Litt, Ab
- ORCID
- Khan, Uzma
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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