Are Sensitivity to Punishment, Sensitivity to Reward and Effortful Control Transdiagnostic Mechanisms Underlying the Eating Disorder/Obesity Spectrum?

Although it has been postulated that eating disorders (EDs) and obesity form part of a broad spectrum of eating- and weight-related disorders, this has not yet been tested empirically. In the present study, we investigated interindividual differences in sensitivity to punishment, sensitivity to reward, and effortful control along the ED/obesity spectrum in women. We used data on 286 patients with eating disorders (44.6% AN-R, 24.12% AN-BP, and 31.82% BN), 126 healthy controls, and 640 Class II/III obese bariatric patients (32.81% Class II and 67.19% Class III) with and without binge eating. Participants completed the behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation scales, as well as the effortful control scale, to assess sensitivity to punishment and reward and effortful control. Results showed that patients with EDs scored significantly higher on punishment sensitivity (anxiety) compared to healthy controls and Class II/III obese patients; the different groups did not differ significantly on reward sensitivity. Patients with binge eating or compensatory behaviors scored significantly lower on effortful control than patients without binge eating. Differences in temperamental profiles along the ED/obesity spectrum appear continuous and gradual rather than categorical. This implies that it may be meaningful to include emotion regulation and impulse regulation training in the treatment of both EDs and obesity.

An empirical study of affective and cognitive functions in Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder

Background and aimsDespite the inclusion of the Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder (CSBD) in the International Classification of Diseases, very little is known about the underlying affective and cognitive processes. To fill this gap, we compared CSBD subjects and Healthy-Controls (HC) across negative/positive valence, cognitive and sensorimotor systems, as proposed by the Research Domain Criteria framework.Methods74 heterosexual CSBD and 66 matched HC males were studied with 10 questionnaires and 8 behavioral tasks. Analyses were conducted with frequent and Bayesian statistics.ResultsCSBD individuals showed significantly higher (than HC) punishment sensitivity, anxiety, depression, compulsivity, and impulsivity symptoms. Frequentist statistical analysis revealed significant interaction between subject group and condition in Incentive Delay Task, concerning the strength of motivation and hedonic value of erotic rewards. Bayesian analysis produced evidence for the absence of group differences in Facial Discrimination Task, Risk-Ambiguity Task, and Learning Task. Also, Bayesian methods provided evidence for group differences in the Emotional Stroop Task and the Incentive Delay Task. Sexual Discounting Task, Attentional Network Task, and Stop Signal Task produced mixed results.ConclusionsHigher punishment sensitivity and impulsivity among CSBD subjects, along with significant interaction between these groups and erotic vs. non-erotic reward processing is in line with previous findings on negative/positive valence alterations in CSBD patients. This result shows that there are similarities to substance and behavioral addictions. The absence of group differences and mixed results related to cognitive and sensorimotor systems raise concerns to what extent CSBD resembles a wide spectrum of impairments observed in disorders, and demand further research.

Anger Responses in Adolescents: Relationship with Punishment and Reward Sensitivity

A substantial proportion of youth with anxiety disorders shows comorbid behavioral (anger) problems. Such comorbid profile is associated with low treatment effectiveness and negative (longterm) outcomes. This study was therefore designed to examine trait factors that may promote anger responding in adolescents. By presenting participants (N = 158, mean age = 15.7, 56% female) with a series of common anger-eliciting situations, we tested whether high reward sensitivity would be associated with anger via perceived non-reward, and high punishment sensitivity via perceived threat. In line with the hypotheses, an indirect effect of reward sensitivity on anger was found via perceived non-reward, and an indirect effect of punishment sensitivity on anger via perceived threat. The latter association also had an indirect effect via perceived non-reward. High punishment and reward sensitivity may thus set adolescents at risk for developing (comorbid) anger problems via heightened threat and non-reward perceptions.

Punishment insensitivity in humans is due to failures in instrumental contingency learning

Punishment maximises the probability of our individual survival by reducing behaviours that cause us harm, and also sustains trust and fairness in groups essential for social cohesion. However, some individuals are more sensitive to punishment than others and these differences in punishment sensitivity have been linked to a variety of decision-making deficits and psychopathologies. The mechanisms for why individuals differ in punishment sensitivity are poorly understood, although recent studies of conditioned punishment in rodents highlight a key role for punishment contingency detection (Jean-Richard-Dit-Bressel et al., 2019). Here, we applied a novel ‘Planets and Pirates’ conditioned punishment task in humans, allowing us to identify the mechanisms for why individuals differ in their sensitivity to punishment. We show that punishment sensitivity is bimodally distributed in a large sample of normal participants. Sensitive and insensitive individuals equally liked reward and showed similar rates of reward-seeking. They also equally disliked punishment and did not differ in their valuation of cues that signalled punishment. However, sensitive and insensitive individuals differed profoundly in their capacity to detect and learn volitional control over aversive outcomes. Punishment insensitive individuals did not learn the instrumental contingencies, so they could not withhold behaviour that caused punishment and could not generate appropriately selective behaviours to prevent impending punishment. These differences in punishment sensitivity could not be explained by individual differences in behavioural inhibition, impulsivity, or anxiety. This bimodal punishment sensitivity and these deficits in instrumental contingency learning are identical to those dictating punishment sensitivity in non-human animals, suggesting that they are general properties of aversive learning and decision-making.

Why Dieters Succeed or Fail: The Relationship Between Reward and Punishment Sensitivity and Restrained Eating and Dieting Success

BackgroundThe current study set out to improve our understanding of the characteristics of individuals who are motivated to restrict their food intake yet who nevertheless fail to do so. We examined whether punishment sensitivity (PS) was related to restrained eating, and reward sensitivity (RS) to perceived dieting success. Additionally, it was examined whether executive control (EC) moderates the association between RS and perceived dieting success.MethodsFemale student participants (N = 290, aged 17–29, BMI between 18.5 and 38.0) completed questionnaires on restrained eating, perceived dieting success, RS and PS, and carried out a behavioral task to index EC.ResultsPS was indeed positively related to restrained eating. RS was positively related to perceived dieting success, yet, EC did not moderate this association.ConclusionThe current study adds to the evidence that PS is related to individuals’ motivation to restrict their food intake. Furthermore, it shows support for the suggestion that RS may facilitate food restriction.

Punishment insensitivity in humans is due to failures in instrumental contingency learning

Punishment maximises the probability of our individual survival by reducing behaviours that cause us harm, and also sustains trust and fairness in groups essential for social cohesion. However, some individuals are more sensitive to punishment than others and these differences in punishment sensitivity have been linked to a variety of decision-making deficits and psychopathologies. The mechanisms for why individuals differ in punishment sensitivity are poorly understood, although recent studies of conditioned punishment in rodents highlight a key role for punishment contingency detection (Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel et al., 2019). Here we applied a novel “Planets & Pirates” conditioned punishment task in humans, allowing us to identify the mechanisms for why individuals differ in their sensitivity to punishment. We show that punishment sensitivity is bimodally distributed in a large sample of normal participants. Sensitive and insensitive individuals equally liked reward and showed similar rates of reward-seeking. They also equally disliked punishment and did not differ in their valuation of cues that signalled punishment. However, sensitive and insensitive individuals differed profoundly in their capacity to detect and learn volitional control over aversive outcomes. Punishment insensitive individuals did not learn the instrumental contingencies, so they could not withhold behaviour that caused punishment and could not generate appropriately selective behaviours to prevent impending punishment. These differences in punishment sensitivity could not be explained by individual differences in behavioural inhibition, impulsivity, or anxiety. This bimodal punishment sensitivity and these deficits in instrumental contingency learning are identical to those dictating punishment sensitivity in non-human animals, suggesting that they are general properties of aversive learning and decision making.