Sex differences in the intensity bias emerge despite comparable baseline liking, wanting, hunger, and instrumental learning between males and females¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2029: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Liking and wanting measures showed no differences between males and females before or after the appetitive experiment. → Luigi A. E. Degni 2024 q3 i? Instrumental learning phase response percentages and reaction times showed no differences between the sexes. → Luigi A. E. Degni 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

Luigi A. E. Degni 2024¶

Luigi A. E. Degni, Sara Garofalo, Gianluca Finotti, Francesca Starita, Trevor W. Robbins & Giuseppe di Pellegrino. (2024). Sex differences in motivational biases over instrumental actions. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00246-6

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1 ran 2x3x2 mixed ANOVAs on liking and wanting scores (pre/post, three outcomes, sex); the ANOVAs found no significant sex effects or interactions, while wanting increased over time comparably for all participants, confirming a general hunger increase.

"1 7 ) .I ns u m m a r y ,t h e s e results confirm absence of difference between the two groups in liking and wanting."

Luigi A. E. Degni 2024 (2)¶

Luigi A. E. Degni, Sara Garofalo, Gianluca Finotti, Francesca Starita, Trevor W. Robbins & Giuseppe di Pellegrino. (2024). Sex differences in motivational biases over instrumental actions. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00246-6

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1 tested baseline response preferences and vigor with 2x2 mixed ANOVAs on percentage of responses and reaction times during instrumental learning; all main effects and interactions were non-significant with Bayesian evidence for the null, confirming "absence of difference between the two groups in Instrumental learning."

"These results are confirmed even for the reaction times, both for the main effects (response: F1,33 = 0.35; p = 0.56; ηp 2 = 0.01; BF10 = 0.29; sex: F1,33 = 0.77; p = 0.39; ηp 2 = 0.02; BF10 = 0.56) and for the interaction between response and sex ( F1,33 = 0.07; p = 0.79; ηp 2 = 0.002; BF 10 = 0.33)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Gender — predictor: outcomes differ by group: a gap reflecting circumstances and treatment, not a cause

Related Claims¶

• In an appetitive PIT transfer phase, both males and females show a direction bias, choosing cue-congruent responses more than incongruent ones, with no sex difference — related
• In an appetitive PIT transfer phase, motivational cues speed responding (intensity bias) in males only; females show no intensity bias — related
• The direction bias is absent of sex modulation in the aversive PIT context as well, with no male-female difference in direction bias — related
• In an aversive PIT paradigm, the intensity bias (stronger grip force) is again present in males but not females, showing the sex difference is valence-independent — related