Psychology Reader

Parsing Reward

Kent C. Berridge and Terry E. Robinson · 2003 · Trends in Neurosciences

Role
Foundational argument · Major synthesis
Difficulty
Moderate
Full work length
7 pages
Type
Journal article

Access

Psychology Reader links to legitimate sources and does not host article PDFs.

Reading focus

Syllabus: How Do Brain and Body Support Mind and Behavior?

Compare the measures and interventions used to distinguish learning, ‘wanting,’ and ‘liking.’

Why you’re reading it. See why careful psychological definitions remain necessary when studying molecules and circuits.

A question to consider. An intervention increases reward seeking without changing pleasurable reactions. How would you interpret the result, and which alternative explanations would you test?

Why this reading

Reward is not a single psychological event. Berridge and Robinson distinguish learning about a reward, being motivated to obtain it, and reacting to it with pleasure. Their central contribution is to ask which component a biological intervention actually changes.

Before you read

In this framework, ‘liking’ denotes a hedonic reaction and ‘wanting’ denotes incentive salience: the motivational pull attributed to a reward or its cue. These technical uses do not always match conscious liking or deliberate desire. Dopamine is a chemical signal with several roles; changing dopamine activity does not by itself identify which reward process has changed. A conditioned stimulus is a learned cue for an outcome.

Read for

  1. Compare the behavioral measures used for learning, motivation, and hedonic reactions.
  2. Ask how an intervention dissociates processes that normally occur together.
  3. Distinguish evidence about observable reactions from claims about conscious experience and from speculative evolutionary explanations.

Consider afterwards

  1. If an animal works harder for a reward, what additional measures could distinguish greater ‘wanting’ from greater ‘liking’?
  2. Why would a single measure of reward seeking be insufficient to identify a drug's psychological effect?

Editorial context

The framework rejects a simple equation of dopamine with pleasure, but it should not be replaced with an equally simple one-function account of dopamine. Much of the mechanistic evidence comes from animals, and the review's proposed unconscious processes require careful operational definitions. A published erratum corrects the bottom-right Figure 1 label to Human unconscious ‘liking’.