Rationale Craving as a motivational determinant of drug use remains controversial because of ambiguous empirical findings. A behavioral economic approach may clarify the nature of craving, theorizing that subjective craving functionally reflects an acute increase in a drug’s value. The current study tested this hypothesis via a multidimensional assessment of alcohol demand over the course of an alcohol cue reactivity procedure. Method Heavy drinkers (n = 92) underwent exposures to neutral (water) cues followed by personalized alcohol cues. Participants were assessed for craving, alcohol demand, affect, and salivation following each exposure. Findings Alcohol versus neutral cues significantly increased craving and multiple behavioral economic measures of the relative value of alcohol, including alcohol consumption under conditions of zero cost (intensity), maximum expenditure on alcohol (Omax), persistence in drinking to higher prices (breakpoint) and proportionate price insensitivity (normalized Pmax). Craving was significantly correlated with demand measures at levels ranging from .21 – .43. Conclusions These findings support the potential utility of a behavioral economic approach to understanding the role of environmental stimuli in alcohol-related decision making. Specifically, they suggest that the behavioral economic indices of demand may provide complementary motivational information that is related to though not entirely redundant with measures of subjective craving.

The effect of relationship availability on perceived attractiveness is a key component to social relations. Experiment 1 tested 90 female college students, having them read a vignette description of a hypothetical male who was either single, involved, or married. Participants rated the male on 5 questions pertaining to attractiveness. The results indicated that females were more attracted to single males compared to both involved and married males. No significant difference was found between the ratings of involved and married males. In Experiment 2, 127 males and females were tested employing the same instrument. The results indicated that females were less attracted to married individuals, while the male participants had no significant difference in their ratings. Although these findings show no clear support for either evolutionary or sociocultural attraction theories, they point towards striking gender differences in perceived attraction.Attraction has been an intensely studied field across different scientific disciplines. In general, theories regarding the factors causing attraction to a mate fall into two categories. Evolutionary theorists believe that mating preferences of humans have evolved over time and serve the biological function of maximizing successful reproduction (DeLamater & Hyde, 1998). In this discipline, there is a distinction made between short-term and long-term mating and the needs for each type's success. Males generally use short-term strategies for maximizing offspring, while females look for long-term mating, thus maximizing successful reproduction and the long-term care needed for offspring. However, it is noted that females will use short-term mating strategies as a means to find appropriate long-term associated qualities in males. (DeLamater & Hyde). There is evidence of an equal occurrence of infidelity regardless of gender, and support for the

has contributed a useful theory of hypnosis (Barrios, 2001), as well as a more recent commentary ) that compares and contrasts the 'sociocognitive, dissociation/neo-dissociation, and response expectancy perspectives' with his theory of hypnosis based on principles of conditioning and inhibition. All too rarely do theorists provide an analysis of their approach vis-à-vis competing accounts, so we applaud Barrios's efforts in this regard. Our commentary will focus on his recent discussion of the sociocognitive theory of hypnosis, rather than on his observations regarding biofeedback, placebos, faith healing and other phenomena presented in a second commentary on his theory (Barrios, 2007b).Sociocognitive theories reject the traditional view that hypnotic experiences require the presence of an altered state of consciousness. Rather, the same social and cognitive variables that determine mundane complex social behaviours are said to determine hypnotic responses and experiences. Still, sociocognitive theories of hypnosis are not monolithic, as Barrios's commentary might be taken to imply: they are differently nuanced and variously emphasize participants': (a) enactment of the social role of a hypnotized person (William Coe, Theodore Sarbin); (b) attitudes and beliefs about hypnosis, fantasy involvements and motivated engagement with imaginative suggestions (T.X. Barber); (c) cognitive strategies, goal-directed activities and interpretation of suggestions (John Chaves, Nicholas Spanos, Graham Wagstaff); and (d) expectancies, response sets and automatic responses in everyday actions (Irving Kirsch, Steven Jay Lynn).Barrios distinguishes sociocognitive theory from the response set theory and the response expectancy theory of hypnosis. However, the latter perspectives sit fi rmly in the camp of sociocognitive theory (Lynn, Kirsch and Hallquist, 2008). Moreover, response set theory -which emphasizes the automaticity of responses -and response expectancy theory, are related yet distinct perspectives. Kirsch and Lynn, 1997, 1999;Lynn, 1997) developed response set theory collaboratively as an extension of Kirsch's (1991) response expectancy theory and Lynn's (Lynn and Rhue, 1991) integrative model. Given that Barrios explicitly acknowledges the important role of expectancies and beliefs about hypnosis, as well as motivation and imagination, his theory falls under the broad umbrella of sociocognitive approaches, despite the fact that Barrios argues that in some circumstances, it is possible to speak of an hypnotic state.Barrios notes that both his perspective and sociocognitive theory 'discuss the importance of the part played by individual differences' in responding to suggestions. However, a primary task of any theory of hypnosis is to account for individual differences in suggestibility. Barrios contends that the age of the subject and the prestige of the hypnotist in the eyes of the subject contribute to individual differences, yet are variables neglected in sociocognitive theories. It is true that participants' age has n...