chapter 10 discussion 2

The Sweet Taste Test: Relationships with Anhedonia Subtypes, Personality Traits, and Menstrual Cycle Phases

Jeffrey S. Bedwell1 & Christopher C. Spencer1 & Cristina A. Chirino1 & John P. O’Donnell1

Published online: 15 January 2019 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract A better understanding of the etiology and pathology related to distinct subtypes of anhedonia can lead to more efficacious personalized treatments. The current study advances knowledge on consummatory anhedonia - represented in the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) subconstruct of Initial Response to Reward (IRR). The Sweet Taste Test (STT) has promise as a behavioral paradigm for IRR, as it is sensitive to manipulation of μ-opioid receptors. However, there is a lack of existing knowledge of how the STT relates to subtypes of anhedonia, personality traits, and phases of the menstrual cycle. To address these questions, we administered the STT to 72 nonpsychiatric adults (76% women; mean age: 19.11). As predicted, the hedonic slope reflecting increasing Blike^ ratings over increasing concentrations of five sucrose solutions (ranging from 0.05 M to 0.86 M), was lower in individuals reporting higher consummatory anhedonia (measured with Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scales - Consummatory Subscale) and in women in the mid-to-late luteal menstrual phase (days 20 to 28). Both effects were driven by lower hedonic ratings to the sweetest concentration. The hedonic slope was larger in individuals scoring higher on the Flight-Freeze-Avoidance System personality factor from the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Personality Questionnaire - driven by lower hedonic ratings for the least sweet concentration. No factor or aspect from the Big Five Aspects Scale related to hedonic ratings on the STT. The STT may be a valid and specific standardized behavioral paradigm to add to IRR, particularly if validated in a large transdiagnostic psychiatric sample.

Keywords Sucrose .Reward .Consummatoryanhedonia .Initialresponsivenesstorewardattainment .Researchdomaincriteria .

Consummatory pleasure

Introduction

Anhedonia is a transdiagnostic symptom which is particularly resistant to existing treatments relative to most co-occurring symptoms (McCabe et al. 2010; Vittengl et al. 2015). While the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) defines anhedonia as a unitary construct (e.g., Bdecreased interest and pleasure in most activities most of the day;^ American Psychiatric Association 2013), recent ad- vances in affective neuroscience suggest three distinct sub- types (Treadway and Zald 2011): motivational (i.e., wanting), consummatory (i.e., liking), and decisional (i.e., reward learn- ing). The National Institute of Mental Health’s (NIMH) Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Matrix includes

corresponding constructs under the Positive Valence Systems (PVS) domain (Insel et al. 2010). A better under- standing of the etiology and pathology related to distinct sub- types of anhedonia can lead to more efficacious personalized interventions for this treatment-resistant symptom (Insel and Cuthbert 2015; Strauss and Cohen 2017).

Consummatory anhedonia is partially represented in the PVS construct Reward Responsiveness under the subconstruct of Initial Response to Reward (IRR; as of 10/2/ 18), defined by NIMH as: BProcesses evoked by the initial presentation of a positive reinforcer as reflected by indices of neuronal activity and verbal or behavioral responses.^ This is reflected by the inclusion of the Consummatory sub- scale of the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scales (TEPS-C; Gard et al. 2007) under Self-Reports in IRR. While IRR cur- rently names a single paradigm of Bsimple guessing task,^ application of such tasks require physiological measures of brain response (e.g., Tsypes et al. 2018). Alternatively, the Sweet Taste Test (STT; Kampov-Polevoy et al. 1997; Dichter et al. 2010) has promise as a behavioral IRR paradigm

* Jeffrey S. Bedwell [email protected]

1 Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, 4111 Pictor Lane, Orlando, FL 32816-1390, USA

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2019) 41:235–248 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-019-09717-2

that could be used in clinical settings, as it is does not require physiological equipment and related expertise. While the STT is not specifically named under Paradigms for IRR, Btaste reactivity^ is listed under Behavior. In the STT, the participant tastes a random order of five trials for each of five concentra- tions of sucrose, ranging from minimal sweetness to two so- lutions that are sweeter than beverages such as Coca-Cola®, and collects subjective ratings of sweetness and liking after each trial (Kampov-Polevoy et al. 1997).

Individuals whose hedonic Blike^ ratings are highest for the strongest sucrose concentration have been termed Bsweet likers,^ a category associated with alcohol use dis- order (Kampov-Polevoy et al. 2001, 2003; Wronski et al. 2007), cocaine use disorder (Janowsky et al. 2003), binge- eating disorder (Goodman et al. 2017), impulsive choice on a delay discounting task (Weafer et al. 2014), better response to naltrexone treatment for alcohol use disorder (Garbutt et al. 2009, 2016), and greater amphetamine- induced euphoria in nonpsychiatric women but not men (Weafer et al. 2017). Consistent with inclusion of μ- opioid receptors under IRR Molecules, research has shown that stimulation of μ-opioid Bhedonic hotspots^ in the nucleus accumbens shell, ventral pallidum, anterior orbitofrontal cortex, and posterior insula increase sucrose Bliking^ behavior in rats (Castro and Berridge 2017). Similarly, a study of nonpsychiatric men found a decrease in sucrose liking following administration of the μ-opioid antagonist naltrexone, and increased liking following the μ-opioid agonist morphine (Eikemo et al. 2016). Both effects were observed for only dimensional hedonic rat- ings for the sweetest concentration (0.65 M in that study) and did not change a slope-based categorical sweet liker status. This finding is consistent with studies showing that naltrexone reduced average STT hedonic ratings in non- psychiatric women (Arbisi et al. 1999) and opioid depen- dent participants (Langleben et al. 2012). Overall, it ap- pears that the STT partially reflects endogenous opioid functioning, particularly the dimensional hedonic rating to the sweetest solution.

Considering this emerging literature, we were interested in how STT performance relates to subtypes of anhedonia and a range of personality traits. This will inform investigators and clinicians regarding which anhedonia measure or subscale may best assess IRR/consummatory anhedonia, and general personality research by highlighting particular traits which may be sensitive to individual differences in the endogenous opioid system. Finally, there is increasing evidence that the luteal menstrual cycle phase, via an increase in progesterone, dampens hedonic responsivity to cocaine in female rhesus macaques (Carroll et al. 2016) and humans (Evans and

Foltin 2006; Evans et al. 2002). As both progesterone and estradiol interact with opioid receptors (Schroeder et al. 2003; Lee and Ho 2013), it is possible that estradiol, which is higher during the follicular menstrual phase, may also effect reward sensitivity. However, studies in rhesus monkeys found that administering exogenous estradiol did not alter cocaine self-administration, while administering progesterone reduced the cocaine use (Mello et al. 2008, 2011). A recent study found an amplitude reduction in the event-related potential of reward positivity in response to monetary gains in women during the luteal as opposed to follicular phase of the menstru- al cycle, but this influence was only significant in women with greater severity of depression (Mulligan et al. 2018). Examining the relationship between menstrual phases and STT performance in a nonpsychiatric sample will account for important individual differences present in menstruating women and add to our understanding of how these phases may induce temporary changes in IRR.

It appears that only one existing study examined relation- ships between a behavioral assessment of sweet taste liking and anhedonia severity. This study found that, across a transdiagnostic sample of individuals with major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and nonpsychiatric controls, higher scores on the self-report Chapman Physical, but not Social, Anhedonia scale was associated with a lower maximum hedonic rating across all sucrose concentrations on the STT (Berlin et al. 1998). There appear to be few published studies on the relationship of a behavioral measure of sweet liking with personality traits. One reported that individuals who preferred the sweeter of two blinded samples of the same white wine scored lower on self-reported openness and higher on impulsiveness, a facet of neuroticism (Saliba et al. 2009). A study using five blinded levels of sweetness of the same red wine found that participants who preferred sweeter concentrations were higher in neu- roticism (Sena-Esteves et al. 2018). A study using the STT reported that categorical sweet likers did not differ from other participants on self-reported novelty seeking (Lange et al. 2010). Studies that did not include a behavioral mea- sure found that higher self-reported generalized liking of sweet foods and drinks was associated with higher self- reported agreeableness (Sagioglou and Greitemeyer 2016; Meier et al. 2012; Ashton et al. 2014), neuroticism (Kikuchi and Watanabe 2000; Elfhag and Erlanson-Albertsson 2006), and/or openness/intellect (Ashton et al. 2014) scores. Finally, while some research has found that women con- sume more sweet foods during the luteal phase (Bowen and Grunberg 1990; Tucci et al. 2010), one study examined hedonic rating to varying concentrations of sucrose solu- tions reported that ratings were lowest in the luteal phase,

236 J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248

particularly for the sweetest concentration (Elliott et al. 2015). However, this study did not use the traditional STT, was limited by a single trial of four sucrose solutions, and did not include men in the comparison group.

Based on existing findings using behavioral measures of hedonic response to sweet tastes, and current information in the IRR domain, we hypothesized that hedonic ratings to the sweetest STT concentration would be lower in participants reporting increased consummatory anhedonia, and higher in participants reporting more neuroticism and/or impulsiveness. In addition, we predicted that women in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle would report a reduced hedonic response to the sweetest STT concentration as compared to other women and men.

Methods

Participants

Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in a Psychology Department course that offered credit in ex- change for research participation at a large southeastern public university in the United States. Participants were screened online (N = 2135) and excluded for: completing questionnaire either too quickly (< 10th %ile of duration from sample; N = 122; 5.7%) or slowly (> 90%ile; N = 146; 6.8%), scoring >2 SD above mean on the Abbreviated Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Reynolds 1982; N = 75; 3.5%), using non-prescribed stim- ulant or narcotic medication (N = 23; 1.1%), excessive chronic alcohol use (N = 16; 1.0%), hypothyroidism in self (N = 30; 1.4%) or first-degree family member (N = 91; 4.3%), significant past head injury or chronic neurological disorder (N = 50; 2.3%), failure to endorse willingness to abstain from recreational drugs for 48 h prior to the testing session (N = 369; 17.3%) or alcohol for 24 h prior to testing (N = 11; 0.5%), significant uncorrected vision impairment (N = 51; 2.4%), physical impairment in arms/hands (N = 4; 0.2%), or endorsing more than two items incorrectly on an 8-item Infrequency Scale (Jackson 1984; N = 16; 1.0%). The remaining 1131 participants received an invitation to participate in the lab-based portion of the task. However, only a minority of those participants completed the lab ses- sion (N = 79), as the online questionnaires were designed for a larger study examining relationships between those scales (currently unpublished). On the day of laboratory testing, all participants denied recent nicotine use, alcohol in past 24 h, and other recreational drug use in past 48 h.

However, this was based on self-report as we did not have laboratory tests to confirm.

Of the 79 participants, 77 had valid data for the STT, as two were excluded for sweetness ratings that did not approximate a linear increase with increasing concentrations and were sta- tistical outliers for that slope value (Z < −3.33 for each). An additional 5 participants were excluded for missing all anhe- donia measures and bio-demographic data (e.g., menstrual phase) due to experimenter error (both a priori reasons for excluding participants). This resulted in 72 participants used in final analyses (76% women; mean age: 19.11; SD = 2.07; range 18 to 28). For race, 75.0% identified as BWhite,^ 8.3% as BBlack,^ 8.3% as BAsian, 4.2% as BOther,^ 2.8% as BMixed,^ and one participant declined to answer. Independent of race, 34.7% identified as BHispanic/ Latino(a).^ Two participants reported selective-serotonin re- uptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication use at the time of testing. The remaining participants denied current psychotropic and narcotic medication use.

Measures

Self-Report Scales

The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Personality Questionnaire (RST-PQ; Corr and Cooper 2016) was admin- istered during the online phase, which consists of 65 state- ments with a response key asking the participant to rate how much the statement describes them in general - ranging from B1 - Not At All^ to B4 - Highly.^ The RST-PQ produces six scales - four behavioral activation system subscales: Reward Interest, Goal-Drive Persistence, Reward Reactivity, and Impulsivity, along with scales for the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) and Flight-Freeze- Avoidance System (FFAS). The reliability and validity of the RST-PQ have received ad- ditional recent support in chronic pain samples (Amiri et al. 2017), and through relationships found with event-related po- tentials from electroencephalogram (Kaye et al. 2018; De Pascalis et al. 2017). The Big Five Aspect Scales (BFAS; DeYoung et al. 2007) was also administered online, and con- sists of 100 statements with a response key asking the partic- ipant to rate how accurately the statement reflects how they generally are - ranging from B1 - Very Inaccurate^ to B5 - Very Accurate.^ The BFAS results in the traditional big five factors along with two aspects for each factor: Neuroticism (Volatility, Withdrawal), Agreeableness (Compassion, Politeness), Conscientiousness (Industriousness, Orderliness), Extraversion (Enthusiasm, Assertiveness), and Openness/Intellect (Openness, Intellect). The validity of BFAS aspect scales have been supported with specific

J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248 237

relationships to psychopathology (Allen et al. 2018; Quilty et al. 2014) and self-reported personality disorder symptoms (DeYoung et al. 2016).

During the day of STTassessment, we administered three anhedonia self-report scales - the 18-item Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scales, which includes subscales for anticipatory (TEPS-A) and consummatory (TEPS-C) anhedonia (Gard et al. 2007), the 17-item Anticipatory and Consummatory Interpersonal Pleasure Scale total score (ACIPS; Gooding and Pflum 2014), and the 14-item Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale total score (SHAPS; Snaith et al. 1995). Unlike the TEPS, factor analysis has not supported separate factors for anticipatory and consum- matory anhedonia on the ACIPS (Gooding and Pflum 2014). Increased anhedonia is indicated by lower scores on the TEPS and ACIPS and higher scores on the SHAPS. The Cronbach alphas for the anhedonia scales in our sample were: TEPS-A (.76), TEPS-C (.75), ACIPS (.91), and SHAPS (.59).

Sweet Taste Test (STT)

The STT is a standardized assessment of hedonic response to sweet tastes in human participants (Kampov-Polevoy et al. 1997). Powdered sugar and distilled water were used to create five concentrations of sucrose solutions (approximately 0.05 M, 0.10 M, 0.19 M, 0.42 M, and 0.86 M). As a reference, Coca-Cola® is a 0.33 M solution. Participants received five trials of each of the five solutions in a blinded random order. During each trial, participants drank from a small plastic opaque cup containing 2 mL of solution, swished the solution in their mouth for about 5 s, and then expectorated into a container. Participants were asked to mark an BX^ on a 201 mm analog scale line to indicate perceived sweetness, from BNot sweet at all^ (left anchor) to BExtremely sweet^ (right anchor), and, on a separate scale, how much they liked it from BDislike it very much^ (left anchor) to BLike it very much^ (right anchor). Following the ratings, participants rinsed with distilled water and proceeded to the next trial. Ratings were then scored based on distance (in mm) of the BX^ from the left side of the respective scale line, and then averaged within the five concentrations.

We used the slope of hedonic ratings by increasing sucrose concentration (i.e., hedonic slope) as the primary measure of dimensional hedonic ratings and any statisti- cally significant relationship with this dependent variable was then further explored across the separate hedonic rat- ings for the five concentrations. We also examined rela- tionships with the categorical Bsweet liker^ status, defined as having the highest hedonic rating for the sweetest

concentration (Kampov-Polevoy et al. 2001, 2003; Wronski et al. 2007). Finally, we included the sweet sen- sitivity slope to clarify specificity of any findings with the hedonic variables. The hedonic and sweet sensitivity slopes and the five individual concentration hedonic rat- ing values all showed relatively normal distributions with skewness and kurtosis <1.05.

Menstrual Cycle Stage Identification

We asked all female participants to identify the current day in their menstrual cycle using day one defined by the start of last menstruation. We also asked women if they thought they may be pregnant, which all denied. We created a Bluteal menstrual phase status^ variable which classified women reporting being in the mid-to- late luteal menstrual stage during the day of testing, de- fined as days 20 to 28 from start of last mentruation, with all remaining women and men combined in the second of the two categories. Although reward processing studies with rhesus macaques typically chose a late luteal window around days 24 to 27 to optimally isolate the rise in pro- gesterone (Carroll et al. 2016), we chose a wider mid-to- late luteal phase window to allow for inherent error in estimating the current day of cycle based on self-report/ memory, and to allow for inclusion of a sufficient number of females in this subgroup for statistical analyses. Similarly, we created a Bfollicular menstrual phase status^ variable which classified women being in the mid-to-late follicular phase during the day of testing, which we de- fined as days 5 to 12 following the onset of menstruation. This window is also somewhat wider than the follicular window typically used in the rhesus monkey studies (7 to 10 days following menstruation; Carroll et al. 2016), based on the same rationale.

Procedures

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ university. Research followed ethical principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants provided informed consent at the beginning of both online and lab- based sessions. During the lab-based session, participants completed demographic information, including questions about current medication and supplement use, the anhedonia questionnaires, and the STT, as part of a larger study. No data resulting from the larger study have been published at this time.

238 J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248

Statistical Analyses

For self-report measures, one participant was missing the TEPS and ACIPS. Across measures, if either one or two items for a subscale/factor were skipped by a particular participant, the respective score was then based on the average of the remaining items for that factor. IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 25) was used for all analyses. Initial regressions examined relationships of the STT he- donic and sweet sensitivity slopes and sweet liker catego- ry with simultaneous entry of: age, sex, luteal menstrual phase status, follicular menstrual phase status, birth con- trol medication use, race, ethnicity, and time of day during testing (variance inflation factor [VIF] < 1.60). Time of day during testing was rounded to nearest hour (mode = 4:00 p.m.; range = 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). This was ex- amined as an approximation of fluctuations in the circa- dian system (e.g., hormone levels), which can influence behavioral responses to rewards (DePoy et al. 2017).

Additional regressions were used to examine sets of predictors on each of the three STT variables, the: 1) four anhedonia scales: TEPS-A, TEPS-C, ACIPS, and SHAPS, 2) six factor scores from the RST-PQ, 3) five BFAS fac- tors, and 4) ten BFAS aspects. Simultaneous entry was used for all predictor sets (VIF < 3.10 for all sets). If a predictor showed a significant relationship with the he- donic slope, this was followed by an exploratory analysis of the five concentration hedonic ratings that comprised the slope, using stepwise entry, regressed on the respec- tive predictor. All regressions involving the sweet liker category used binary logistic regressions, while the re- maining analyses on dimensional STT variables used

linear regression. Across all regressions, there were no statistical outliers, as defined by a Studentized residual >3.0.

Results

See Fig. 1 for a depiction of the hedonic slope by sweet liker status. Descriptive statistics and zero-correlations for STT var- iables with each of the predictor sets can be found in Tables 1 (anhedonia scales), 2 (RST-PQ scales), 3 (BFAS factors), and 4 (BFAS aspects). Thirty participants (42%) were classified as Bsweet likers.^ Excluding the two participants taking SSRI medications did not change the pattern of significant findings across all analyses. They were therefore retained in all results presented below.

STT Relationships with Menstrual Phase Status, Demographic Variables, and Time of Day during Testing

We examined the three STT variables using regressions with simultaneous entry of sex, luteal menstrual phase status (N = 13), follicular menstrual phase status (N = 13), birth control medication use (N = 19), age, race, ethnicity, and time of day during testing. As shown in Table 5, women in the mid-to-late luteal menstrual phase had a smaller hedonic slope, driven by lower hedonic ratings to the sweetest concentration (see Fig. 2), and were less likely to be categorical sweet likers (15%), as compared to the combination of the remaining women and men (47.5%). Results also revealed that women had a larger sweet sensitivity slope than men (see Table 5). There were no other significant relationships across these re- gressions. Therefore, we included covariates of luteal men- strual phase status and sex in the first block of all remaining regressions.

STT Relationships with Anhedonia

See Table 5 for summary of all findings, including unstan- dardized beta values with standard error and level of statis- tical significance. For anhedonia, the hedonic slope was predicted by only the TEPS-C subscale, which was driven by a positive relationship between the TEPS-C scores and hedonic rating scores to the sweetest concentration (see Fig. 3). Thus, individuals self-reporting more consummato- ry anhedonia (i.e., a lower TEPS-C score) had a smaller hedonic slope and rated the sweetest concentration as less pleasant. The SST sweet sensitivity slope and sweet liker status did not relate to anhedonia scales. Removal of the

Fig. 1 Hedonic slope lines from hedonic rating scores by sucrose concentration for sweet likers and sweet dislikers. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval

J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248 239

SHAPS from the regressions, which had poor internal reli- ability (α = .59), did not change the pattern of significance.

To examine specificity of consummatory vs. anticipa- tory anxiety, we conducted regressions in which sex, lu- teal phase status, and TEPS-A were entered in the first block, followed by TEPS-C in the second block. TEPS- C remained statistically significant for both hedonic slope, unstandardized B = 36.81, SE = 18.15, p = .047, and the hedonic rating to the sweetest concentration, unstandard- ized B = 25.25, SE = 8.80, p = .006. As all four measures of anhedonia were not significantly related to these STT variables in zero-order correlations (see Table 1), we also explored specificity of TEPS-C by entering each anhedo- nia scale in individual regressions, after entering sex and luteal phase status in block 1 – thus removing the effect of multicollinearity among the anhedonia measures. These analyses showed that of the four anhedonia scales, only the TEPS-C related to the hedonic slope or hedonic rating to the sweetest concentration.

STT Relationships with Personality Factors

For the RST-PQ, the hedonic slope was predicted by the Flight-Freeze-Avoidance System (FFAS) score, which was driven by a negative relationship between the FFAS score and the hedonic rating to the least sweet concentration (see Fig. 4). In addition, the sweet sensitivity slope was predict- ed by RST-PQ Goal-Drive Persistence and BFAS Extraversion and Conscientiousness factors (all in the pos- itive direction). The BFAS aspect scales did not relate to any STT variable when entered simultaneously in the regressions.

Examination of Change in Results with Retention of Excluded Participants

When repeating all analyses with inclusion of the seven participants who were excluded (N = 79), the pattern of significance across analyses did not change with two mi- nor exceptions: For the RST-PQ FFFS, the hedonic slope relationship changed to a trend level (p = .065), although the FFFS relationship with the hedonic rating to the least sweet concentration remained significant (p = .003). For the BFAS factor relationships with the sweet sensitivity slope, Conscientiousness remained significant (p = .04), but Extraversion was no longer significant (p = .31). In these analyses, all seven of the previously excluded par- ticipants had RST-PQ and BFAS data, but five were miss- ing all anhedonia measures and bio-demographic data (e.g., menstrual phase), and two had sweet sensitivity slopes >3.00 SD below the sample mean.Ta

b le 1

D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs

an d ze ro -o rd er

co rr el at io n s am

o n g an h ed o n ia sc al es

an d sw

ee t ta st e te st v ar ia b le s

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9

1. T E P S -C on su m m at or y S ca le

4. 66

(0 .7 5)

2. T E P S -A

nt ic ip at or y S ca le

.3 6* *

4. 80

(0 .6 1)

3. A C IP S T ot al S co re

.4 5* * *

.7 7* * *

5 .1 2 (0 .6 6)

4. S H A P S T ot al S co re

−. 4 0* * *

−. 3 6* *

−. 45 * **

0 .9 4 (1 .3 4 )

5. S S T H ed on ic S lo pe

.1 5

.0 3

.0 6

−. 01

24 .3 8 (1 11 .6 8)

6. S S T C at eg or ic al S w ee t L ik er ^

.1 1

.1 3

.0 7

−. 11

.6 9 ** *

42 %

7. S S T H ed on ic R at in g to

S w ee te st

.2 0

−. 0 7

< .0 01

−. 00 1

.9 0 ** *

.6 0* * *

10 4 .7 5 (5 5 .1 2 )

8. S S T H ed on ic R at in g to

L ea st S w ee t

−. 1 2

−. 1 9

−. 13

.1 0

−. 84 ** *

−. 6 1* * *

−. 56 ** *

89 .6 2 (5 1 .5 1 )

9. S S T S w ee t S en si ti vi ty

S lo pe

.0 5

.1 9

.1 2

−. 21

−. 01

.0 2

.0 9

.1 2

18 6 .4 2 (4 0. 77 )

D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs

o n th e o u te r d ia g o n al in

fo rm

at : m ea n (s ta nd ar d d ev ia ti o n ), w it h th e ex ce pt io n o f a p er ce n ta g e fo r S T T C at eg o ri ca l S w ee t L ik er ; re m ai n in g v al u es

ar e P ea rs o n ’s o r p o in t- b is er ia l r

v al u es

T E P S T em

p o ra l E x p er ie n ce

o f P le as u re

S ca le s, A C IP S A n ti ci p at o ry

an d C on su m m at o ry

In te rp er so n al P le as u re

S ca le , SH

A P S S n ai th -H

am il to n P le as u re

S ca le , ST

T S w ee t T as te T es t

* p < .0 5 , * * p < .0 1 , * * * p < .0 0 1

^ D ef in ed

b y h ig h es t h ed on ic ra ti n g fo r sw

ee te st co n ce n tr at io n

240 J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248

Ta b le 2

D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs

an d ze ro -o rd er

co rr el at io n s am

o n g R ei n fo rc em

en t S en si ti v it y P er so n al it y Q u es ti o n n ai re

S ca le sc o re s an d sw

ee t ta st e te st v ar ia b le s

1 2

3 4

5 6

1 . R S T -P Q R ew

ar d In te re st

2 .8 3 (0 .6 6 )

2 . R S T -P Q R ew

ar d R ea ct iv it y

.5 6 * **

2 .9 7 (0 .4 8 )

3 . R S T -P Q G o al -D

ri v e P er si st en ce

.5 1 * **

.2 6 *

3 .4 8 (0 .4 6 )

4 . R S T -P Q Im

p u ls iv it y

.4 9 * **

.5 8 * * *

.1 8

2 .2 2 (0 .6 0 )

5 . R S T -P Q B eh av io ra l In h ib it io n S y st em

−. 0 9

.2 5 *

−. 0 7

.2 3

2 .5 0 (0 .6 8 )

6 . R S T -P Q F li g h t- F re ez e- A v o id an ce

S y st em

−. 0 7

.1 1

.1 3

.1 0

.5 4 * * *

2 .5 2 (0 .6 6 )

7 . S S T H ed o n ic S lo p e

.0 1

.1 8

.1 1

.0 8

−. 0 3

.1 6

8 . S S T C at eg o ri ca l S w ee t L ik er

−. 0 4

.1 2

.0 2

.1 1

.1 4

.2 5 *

9 . S S T H ed o n ic R at in g to

S w ee te st

.0 3

.1 4

.1 7

.0 7

−. 0 9

.0 2

1 0 . S S T H ed o n ic R at in g to

L ea st S w ee t

−. 0 2

−. 1 7

−. 0 3

−. 06

−. 02

−. 2 7 *

11 . S S T S w ee t S en si ti v it y S lo p e

.1 4

.0 7

.4 3 * * *

.0 0 4

.0 1

−. 0 0 3

D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs

o n th e o u te r d ia g o n al in

fo rm

at : m ea n (s ta n d ar d de v ia ti o n ); re m ai n in g v al u es

ar e P ea rs o n’ s o r po in t- b is er ia l r v al u es

D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs

fo r th e R S T -P Q ar e fo r th e av er ag e it em

-l ev el sc o re

in a g iv en

fa ct or

(r an g in g fr o m

1 to

4 )

In te rc o rr el at io n s am

o n g S S T v ar ia b le s d ep ic te d in

T ab le 1

R ST -P Q R ei n fo rc em

en t S en si ti v it y T h eo ry

P er so n al it y Q u es ti o n n ai re , ST

T S w ee t T as te T es t

* p < .0 5 , * * p < .0 1 , * * * p < .0 0 1

^ D ef in ed

b y h ig h es t h ed on ic ra ti n g fo r sw

ee te st co n ce n tr at io n

J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248 241

Discussion

As hypothesized, participants who self-reported more con- summatory anhedonia (i.e., lower TEPS-C scores) had a re- duced hedonic slope that was driven by a reduction in the hedonic rating for the sweetest solution (see Fig. 3). This find- ing was specific to consummatory anhedonia as the TEPS-C continued to show these significant relationships after entering TEPS-A in the first block of the regression. In addition, indi- vidual exploratory regressions with each of the other anhedo- nia measures were not significant. This finding with the TEPS- C is broadly consistent with a previous study which found reduced hedonic ratings to the STT in a transdiagnostic psy- chiatric sample related to increased anhedonia from the Chapman Physical Anhedonia Scale, although that study fo- cused on the maximum hedonic rating across all concentra- tions (Berlin et al. 1998). Physical anhedonia is lack of plea- sure from physical sensations, which partially overlaps the TEPS as it assesses lack of pleasure across a wider variety of stimuli. The current finding extends this earlier work by find- ing the relationship in a nonpsychiatric sample, and supports the current inclusion of the TEPS-C and Btaste reactivity^ in the RDoC IRR domain. As both the TEPS-A and the ACIPS contain items regarding anticipatory anhedonia, the specificity of our finding to the TEPS-C suggests that questions regarding consummatory pleasure more precisely reflect IRR. Although the SHAPS questions also reflect consummatory pleasure, the directions to the SHAPS asks participants to answer based on the Blast few days,^ while the TEPS-C asks participants to answer how they feel Bin general.^ Therefore, it may be the

more trait-like aspects of consummatory pleasure that correlate with individual differences in IRR.

Also consistent with our hypotheses, women who report- ed being in the mid-to-late luteal menstrual cycle phase (days 20 to 28), had a lower hedonic slope, driven by lower hedonic ratings for the sweetest concentration (see Fig. 2), and were less likely to be categorical sweet likers, as com- pared to the remaining women and men (see Table 5). This finding is similar to the one other study that examined this relationship (Elliott et al. 2015), but extends their limited methodology of using one sample of four sucrose solutions and no male participants, to the use of the standardized and validated STT and a sample containing both women and men. These findings provide further support for the STT representing IRR, as earlier work has found decreased he- donic ratings following smoked cocaine in women during the luteal, compared with follicular, phase (Evans et al. 2002; Sofuoglu et al. 1999). We did not find any STT rela- tionships with the follicular menstrual phase (days 5–12), consistent with a report that exogenously-administered es- tradiol, which is naturally higher in the follicular phase, did not affect self-administration of cocaine in either intact or ovariectomized rhesus monkeys (Mello et al. 2008).

Our hypotheses regarding the relationship between STT hedonic ratings and personality traits of neuroticism and im- pulsivity were not supported, as there were no statistically significant relationships between STT hedonic ratings and BFAS Neuroticism and RST-PQ Impulsivity factor scores. While this is somewhat inconsistent with the existing research on sweet tastes and personality traits, none of the previous

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among Big Five Aspect Scale factor scores and sweet taste test variables

1 2 3 4 5

1. BFAS Neuroticism Factor 2.78 (0.64)

2. BFAS Agreeableness Factor .01 4.07 (0.47)

3. BFAS Conscientiousness Factor −.37** .23 3.61 (0.52) 4. BFAS Extraversion Factor −.28* .29* .30* 3.47 (0.62) 5. BFAS Openness/Intellect Factor −.25* .27* .32** .56*** 3.75 (0.48) 6. SST Hedonic Slope −.05 .07 .08 .12 .21 7. SST Categorical Sweet Liker^ .16 .21 −.03 .01 .11 8. SST Hedonic Rating to Sweetest −.05 −.01 .07 .15 .25* 9. SST Hedonic Rating to Least Sweet .06 −.17 −.09 −.09 −.13 10. SST Sweet Sensitivity Slope .10 .13 .32** .30* .21

Descriptive statistics on the outer diagonal in format: mean (standard deviation); remaining values are Pearson’s or point-biserial r values

Descriptive statistics for the BFAS are for the average item-level score in a given factor (ranging from 1 to 5)

Intercorrelations among SST variables depicted in Table 1

BFAS Big Five Aspects Scale, STT Sweet Taste Test

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

^ Defined by highest hedonic rating for sweetest concentration

242 J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248

Ta b le 4

D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs

an d ze ro -o rd er

co rr el at io ns

am on g B ig

F iv e A sp ec t S ca le as pe ct sc or es

an d sw

ee t ta st e te st v ar ia bl es

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1 0

1 . B FA

S V o la ti li ty

A sp ec t

2 .6 4 (0 .7 0 )

2 . B FA

S W it h d ra w al A sp ec t

.6 2 * * *

2 .9 4 (0 .7 1 )

3 . B FA

S C o m p as si o n A sp ec t

−. 01

.0 1

4 .1 1 (0 .5 9 )

4 . B FA

S P o li te ne ss

A sp ec t

−. 20

.1 2

.5 5 * * *

4 .0 3 (0 .4 6 )

5 . B FA

S In du st ri o u sn es s A sp ec t

−. 45 * * *

−. 5 1 * * *

.1 2

.1 8

3 .4 6 (0 .6 6 )

6 . B FA

S O rd er li n es s A sp ec t

−. 02

−. 0 7

.2 0

.2 2

.4 7 * * *

3 .7 7 (0 .5 4 )

7 . B FA

S E n th u si as m

A sp ec t

−. 02

−. 2 5 *

.5 0 * * *

.2 2

.2 2

.0 9

3 .6 6 (0 .7 0 )

8 . B FA

S A ss er ti v en es s A sp ec t

−. 01

−. 3 4 * *

.3 1 * *

−. 2 6*

.3 5 * *

.0 9

.5 0 * * *

3 .3 1 (0 .7 1 )

9 . B FA

S O p en n es s A sp ec t

−. 10

−. 0 0 3

.3 5 * *

.0 9

.0 5

.1 6

.2 4 *

.1 7

3 .8 1 (0 .6 1 )

1 0 . B FA

S In te ll ec t A sp ec t

−. 18

−. 4 1 * * *

.2 9 *

−. 1 3

.5 0 * * *

.1 4

.4 5 * * *

.6 6 * * *

.1 9

3 .6 7 (0 .6 2 )

11 . S S T H ed on ic S lo p e

−. 00 1

−. 0 9

.0 5

.0 8

.0 7

.0 6

.1 2

.1 2

.2 0

.1 1

1 2 . S S T C at eg o ri ca l S w ee t L ik er

.1 3

.1 4

.1 8

.1 9

−. 0 8

.0 3

.0 3

.0 4

.1 2

.0 2

1 3 . S S T H ed o n ic R at in g to

S w ee te st

.0 0 4

−. 0 6

.0 3

−. 0 6

.0 6

.0 5

.0 9

.2 0

.1 6

.2 0

1 4 . S S T H ed o n ic R at in g to

L ea st S w ee t

.0 4

.1 4

−. 0 5

−. 2 8*

−. 1 0

−. 0 5

−. 14

−. 02

−. 2 1

.0 0 3

1 5 . S S T S w ee t S en si ti v it y S lo p e

.1 3

.0 7

.1 8

.0 4

.2 5 *

.3 0 *

.2 3

.3 1 * *

.2 0

.1 3

D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs

o n th e o u te r d ia g o n al in

fo rm

at : m ea n (s ta n d ar d de v ia ti o n ); re m ai n in g v al u es

ar e P ea rs o n’ s o r po in t- b is er ia l r v al u es

D es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs

fo r th e B FA

S ar e fo r th e av er ag e it em

-l ev el sc o re

in a g iv en

as p ec t (r an g in g fr o m

1 to

5 )

In te rc o rr el at io n s am

o n g S S T v ar ia b le s d ep ic te d in

T ab le 1

B FA

S B ig

F iv e A sp ec ts S ca le , ST

T S w ee t T as te T es t

* p < .0 5 , * * p < .0 1 , * * * p < .0 0 1

^ D ef in ed

b y h ig h es t h ed on ic ra ti n g fo r sw

ee te st co n ce n tr at io n

J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248 243

Ta b le 5

R es u lt s of

li n ea r an d lo g is ti c re g re ss io n an al ys es

S T T D ep en de nt

V ar ia b le s

S ex

an d L ut ea l M en st ru al P h as e S ta tu s P re d ic to rs #

A n h ed o ni a P re d ic to rs # #

R S T -P Q P re d ic to rs # #

B FA

S F iv e F ac to r P re d ic to rs # #

H ed o n ic S lo p e

L u te al (l o w er

th an

o th er s)

T E P S -C

F FA

S N o n e

B = − 8 0 .3 2 , S E = 3 6 .5 0 *

B = 4 4 .1 1 , S E = 1 9 .9 1 *

B = 4 7 .7 4 , S E = 2 3 .1 5 *

S u cr o se

C o n ce n tr at io n P o st -H

o c T es ts ^

0 .8 6 M

0. 8 6 M

0 .0 5 M

N A

B = − 0 .0 0 2 , S E = 0 .0 0 1 *

B = 0 .0 0 4 , S E = 0 .0 0 2 * *

B = −0

.0 0 4 , S E = 0 .0 0 1 * *

S w ee t L ik er

C at eg o ry

^^ L u te al (l es s li k el y th an

o th er s)

N o n e

N o n e

N o n e

B = −2

.0 6 , S E = 0 .9 2 *

S w ee t S en si ti v it y S lo p e

S ex

(w o m en

> m en )

N o n e

G D P

E x tr av er si on

B = 3 9 .5 9 , S E = 1 2 .4 9 * *

B = 3 8 .1 8 , S E = 11 .0 8 * * *

B = 1 8 .8 3 , S E = 8 .6 8 *

C o ns ci en ti ou sn es s

B = 2 2 .0 3 , S E = 9 .8 0 *

F o r co n si st en cy , al l b et a v al ue s ar e u n st an d ar d iz ed

(B ) d u e to

in cl u si o n o f b o th

ca te g o ri ca l an d d im

en si o n al pr ed ic to rs an d d ep en d en t va ri ab le s

N o st at is ti ca ll y si g n if ic an t re la ti o n sh ip s w er e fo u n d w h en

si m u lt an eo u s en te ri ng

th e te n B FA

S as p ec t sc al es

w it h an y S T T d ep en d en t v ar ia b le

ST T S w ee tt as te te st ,M

M o la ri ty o f co n ce nt ra ti o n ,T

E P S- C T em

p o ra lE

x p er ie n ce

o f P le as u re S ca le s – C o n su m m at o ry ,R

ST -P Q R ei n fo rc em

en tS

en si ti v it y T h eo ry

P er so n al it y Q u es ti o n n ai re ,F

FA S F li g h t-

F re ez e- A v o id an ce

S y st em

, G D P G oa l- D ri ve

P er si st en ce , B FA

S B ig

F iv e A sp ec ts S ca le

* p < .0 5 , * * p < .0 1 , * * * p < .0 0 1

# S im

u lt an eo u sl y en te re d w it h ag e, u se

o f b ir th

co n tr ol

m ed ic at io n , ra ce , et h n ic it y, an d ti m e o f d ay

d u ri n g te st in g

# # C o v ar ie d fo r se x an d lu te al p h as e st at u s, al l p re d ic to rs en te re d si m ul ta n eo u sl y

^ If a v ar ia b le w as si g n if ic an tl y re la te d to h ed o n ic sl op e, th e fi v e h ed o n ic ra ti n g s o f th e in di v id u al co n ce n tr at io n s w er e en te re d in a st ep w is e m an n er o n th e v ar ia b le re la te d to h ed o n ic sl o p e, co v ar y in g fo r se x

an d lu te al p h as e st at us

^^ D ef in ed

b y h ig h es t h ed o n ic ra ti n g fo r sw

ee te st co n ce n tr at io n ; u se d bi n o m ia l lo g is ti c re g re ss io n s, al l p re d ic to rs en te re d si m u lt an eo u sl y

244 J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248

studies used the STT or controlled for sex/luteal menstrual phase, but instead used behavioral tests involving varying sweetness levels of wine (Saliba et al. 2009; Sena-Esteves et al. 2018) or general self-reported tendencies to like sweet food and beverages (Kikuchi and Watanabe 2000; Elfhag and Erlanson-Albertsson 2006).

We found one unexpected personality trait predicted STT hedonic ratings, a positive relationship between the hedonic slope with RST-PQ FFAS factor scores, driven by a negative relationship between the hedonic rating to the least sweet concentration and the FFAS score (see Fig. 4). The Flight- Freeze-Avoidance System (FFAS) factor from the RST-PQ is intended to represent a punishment sensitivity system which controls fear-related behaviors to avoidable aversive

stimuli, such as fleeing, active avoidance, and freezing (Corr and Cooper 2016). While speculative, our finding is similar to a report that individuals with a family history of alcoholism had greater amygdala fMRI activation after tast- ing a sucrose solution than those without a family history, which was significant for the low (0.10 M), but not high (0.83 M), concentration (Eiler et al. 2017). As the amygdala is a primary region for processing fear (Davis and Reijmers 2018), and fear is reflected by the FFAS, this specificity of amygdala activation to the least sweet solution is broadly similar to our finding that individuals with greater FFAS had lower ratings to the least sweet solution.

We found exploratory personality traits that predicted the sweet sensitivity slope, which is thought to reflect gustatory sensory processes rather than IRR (Eikemo et al. 2016). These included positive relationships with RST-PQ Goal-Drive Persistence and BFAS Extraversion and Conscientiousness factor scores. Interestingly, the BFAS aspect scales constitut- ing the Extraversion and Conscientiousness factors did not relate to the sweet sensitivity slope. This may be due to the two aspects of a given factor showing similar relationships and the resulting shared variance being removed due to use of simultaneous entry in the regressions. From inspection of the zero-order correlations on Table 4, both aspects of Conscientiousness (i.e., Industriousness and Orderliness) showed significant positive relationships with the sweet sen- sitivity slope. For aspects of Extraversion, Assertiveness was statistically significant (p = .007), while Enthusiasm was a similar effect size but at a statistical trend level (p = .055). It is possible that individuals higher in conscientiousness and/or goal drive persistence were more thoughtful and reliable in recording the sweetness level which then resulted in a stronger slope value. Similarly, it is possible that individual differences

Fig. 2 Hedonic slope lines from hedonic rating scores by sucrose concentration for women in the mid-to-late luteal menstrual phase and the combination of the remaining women and men. Error bars represent the 95% confidence interval

Fig. 3 Scatterplot of the consummatory subscale score from the temporal experience of pleasure scales (unstandardized residuals after covarying for sex and luteal phase) by the hedonic rating scores for the sweet concentration. Shaded region represents 95% confidence interval

J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248 245

in brain mechanisms related to extraversion also confer in- creased gustatory discrimination of sweetness concentrations. As these were exploratory findings, replication is needed be- fore such speculation can be translated into detailed theory.

The study is limited by a moderate sample size, use of undergraduate students as participants, and a larger number of women than men. We also did not ask participants about self-reported hunger or time since last meal, which can affect hedonic responses to sweet stimuli (Cabanac and Lafrance 1990). Other limitations are inherent in the pre-existing stan- dardized STT methods, such as the lack of a control solution (e.g., water with no sucrose) and use of analog scales that introduce confounds instead of a scale such as the generalized Labeled Magnitude Scale (Bartoshuk et al. 2004). Additionally, it would be optimal to measure the same women longitudinally across their menstrual phases to avoid potential confounds. However, a strength is assessing and accounting for female menstrual phase status in the analyses. The study provides what appears to be the first evidence that the STT, particularly hedonic ratings of the sweetest concentration, are reduced in individuals with elevated consummatory anhedo- nia and in women who are in the mid-to-late luteal phase of their menstrual cycle. If replicated, the current results and the recent finding regarding μ-opioid specificity (Eikemo et al. 2016), suggest that Btaste reactivity,^ currently listed under the RDoC IRR BBehaviors,^ be replaced with a more specific inclusion of the hedonic rating to the sweetest concentration from the STT under BParadigms.^ Our finding also supports the validity of the TEPS-C as an index of individual differ- ences in consummatory anhedonia/IRR, which, given that it is a brief self-report scale, has considerable translational value

for clinical and research applications. Similarly, our findings suggest that future research on IRR/consummatory anhedonia account for the potential influence of menstrual cycle phase in female participants.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the following research assistants for their help on this project: Ashley Lee Lum, Pamela Askins, Doniya Milani, Jasmine Montero, Nicholas Picanso, and Brooke Fenton.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest Jeffrey S. Bedwell, Christopher C. Spencer, Cristina A. Chirino, and John P. O’Donnell report no conflicts of interest related to this manuscript and study.

Experiment Participants Research followed ethical principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Ethical Approval This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Central Florida (IRB #: SBE-16-12,678).

Informed Consent All participicipants provided informed consent for both the online and laboratory portions of this study.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Allen, T. A., Carey, B. E., McBride, C., Bagby, R. M., DeYoung, C. G., & Quilty, L. C. (2018). Big Five aspects of personality interact to predict depression. Journal of Personality, 86, 714–725. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12352.

Fig. 4 Scatterplot of the flight- freeze-avoidance system factor score from the reinforcement sensitivity theory personality questionnaire (unstandardized re- siduals after covarying for sex and luteal phase) by the hedonic rating scores for the least sweet concen- tration. Shaded region represents 95% confidence interval

246 J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders; DSM-5. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.

Amiri, S., Behnezhad, S., & Azad-Marzabadi, E. (2017). Psychometric properties revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (r-RST) scale in chronic pain patients. Journal of Pain Research, 10, 1879–1885. https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s132133.

Arbisi, P. A., Billington, C. J., & Levine, A. S. (1999). The effect of naltrexone on taste detection and recognition threshold. Appetite, 32(2), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1998.0217.

Ashton, M. C., Pilkington, A. C., & Lee, K. (2014). Do prosocial people prefer sweet-tasting foods? An attempted replication of Meier, Moeller, Riemer-Peltz, and Robinson (2012). Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.006.

Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Green, B. G., Hoffman, H. J., Ko, C. W., Lucchina, L. A., Marks, L. E., Snyder, D. J., & Weiffenbach, J. M. (2004). Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: The gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiology & Behavior, 82(1), 109–114.

Berlin, I., Givry-Steiner, L., Lecrubier, Y., & Puech, A. J. (1998). Measures of anhedonia and hedonic responses to sucrose in depres- sive and schizophrenic patients in comparison with healthy subjects. European Psychiatry, 13(6), 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0924-9338(98)80048-5.

Bowen, D. J., & Grunberg, N. E. (1990). Variations in food preference and consumption across the menstrual cycle. Physiology & Behavior, 47(2), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(90) 90144-S.

Cabanac, M., & Lafrance, L. (1990). Postingestive alliesthesia: The rat tells the same story. Physiology & Behavior, 47(3), 539–543.

Carroll, M. E., Collins, M., Kohl, E. A., Johnson, S., & Dougen, B. (2016). Sex and menstrual cycle effects on chronic oral cocaine self-administration in rhesus monkeys: Effects of a nondrug alterna- tive reward (journal article). Psychopharmacology, 233(15), 2973– 2984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-016-4343-5.

Castro, D. C., & Berridge, K. C. (2017). Opioid and orexin hedonic hotspots in rat orbitofrontal cortex and insula. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(43), E9125–e9134. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705753114.

Corr, P. J., & Cooper, A. J. (2016). The reinforcement sensitivity theory of personality questionnaire (RST-PQ): Development and validation. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1427–1440. https://doi.org/10. 1037/pas0000273.

Davis, P., & Reijmers, L. G. (2018). The dynamic nature of fear engrams in the basolateral amygdala. Brain Research Bulletin, 141, 44–49.

De Pascalis, V., Fracasso, F., & Corr, P. J. (2017). The behavioral ap- proach system and augmenting/reducing in auditory event-related potentials during emotional visual stimulation. Biological Psychology, 123, 310–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho. 2016.10.015.

DePoy, L. M., McClung, C. A., & Logan, R. W. (2017). Neural mecha- nisms of circadian regulation of natural and drug reward. Neural Plasticity, 2017, 5720842. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5720842.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.93.5.880.

DeYoung, C. G., Carey, B. E., Krueger, R. F., & Ross, S. R. (2016). Ten aspects of the big five in the personality inventory for DSM-5. Personal Disorder, 7(2), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/ per0000170.

Dichter, G. S., Smoski, M. J., Kampov-Polevoy, A. B., Gallop, R., & Garbutt, J. C. (2010). Unipolar depression does not moderate re- sponses to the sweet taste test. Depression and Anxiety, 27(9), 859–863. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20690.

Eikemo, M., Loseth, G. E., Johnstone, T., Gjerstad, J., Willoch, F., & Leknes, S. (2016). Sweet taste pleasantness is modulated by mor- phine and naltrexone. Psychopharmacology, 233(21–22), 3711– 3723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-016-4403-x.

Eiler, W. J. A., Dzemidzic, M., Soeurt, C. M., Carron, C. R., Oberline, B. G., Considine, R. V., Harezlak, J., & Kareken, D. A. (2017). Family history of alcoholism and the human brain response to oral sucrose. Neuroimage Clinical, 17, 1036–1046.

Elfhag, K., & Erlanson-Albertsson, C. (2006). Sweet and fat taste prefer- ence in obesity have different associations with personality and eat- ing behavior. Physiology & Behavior, 88(1), 61–66. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.03.006.

Elliott, S. A., Ng, J., Leow, M. K., & Henry, C. J. (2015). The influence of the menstrual cycle on energy balance and taste preference in Asian Chinese women. European Journal of Nutrition, 54(8), 1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-014-0812-y.

Evans, S. M., & Foltin, R. W. (2006). Exogenous progesterone attenuates the subjective effects of smoked cocaine in women, but not in men. Neuropsychopharmacology, 31(3), 659–674. https://doi.org/10. 1038/sj.npp.1300887.

Evans, S. M., Haney, M., & Foltin, R. W. (2002). The effects of smoked cocaine during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in women. Psychopharmacology, 159(4), 397–406. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00213-001-0944-7.

Garbutt, J. C., Osborne, M., Gallop, R., Barkenbus, J., Grace, K., Cody, M., Flannery, B., & Kampov-Polevoy, A. B. (2009). Sweet liking phenotype, alcohol craving and response to naltrexone treatment in alcohol dependence. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 44(3), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agn122.

Garbutt, J. C., Kampov-Polevoy, A. B., Kalka-Juhl, L. S., & Gallop, R. J. (2016). Association of the Sweet-Liking Phenotype and Craving for alcohol with the response to naltrexone treatment in alcohol depen- dence: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(10), 1056– 1063. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.2157.

Gard, D. E., Kring, A. M., Gard, M. G., Horan, W. P., & Green, M. F. (2007). Anhedonia in schizophrenia: Distinctions between anticipa- tory and consummatory pleasure. Schizophrenia Research, 93(1–3), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2007.03.008.

Gooding, D. C., & Pflum, M. J. (2014). The assessment of interpersonal pleasure: Introduction of the anticipatory and Consummatory inter- personal pleasure scale (ACIPS) and preliminary findings. Psychiatry Research, 215(1), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. psychres.2013.10.012.

Goodman, E. L., Breithaupt, L., Watson, H. J., Peat, C. M., Baker, J. H., Bulik, C. M., & Brownley, K. A. (2017). Sweet taste preference in binge-eating disorder: A preliminary investigation. Eating Behaviors, 28, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2017.11.005.

Insel, T. R., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2015). Medicine. Brain disorders? Precisely. Science, 348, 499–500.

Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Sanislow, C., & Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental dis- orders. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748–751. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379.

Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form Manual. Port Heron: Research Psychologists Press.

J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248 247

Janowsky, D. S., Pucilowski, O., & Buyinza, M. (2003). Preference for higher sucrose concentrations in cocaine abusing-dependent pa- tients. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 37(1), 35–41.

Kampov-Polevoy, A., Garbutt, J. C., & Janowsky, D. (1997). Evidence of preference for a high-concentration sucrose solution in alcoholic men. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154(2), 269–270. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.154.2.269.

Kampov-Polevoy, A. B., Tsoi, M. V., Zvartau, E. E., Neznanov, N. G., & Khalitov, E. (2001). Sweet liking and family history of alcoholism in hospitalized alcoholic and non-alcoholic patients. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 36(2), 165–170.

Kampov-Polevoy, A. B., Ziedonis, D., Steinberg, M. L., Pinsky, I., Krejci, J., Eick, C., Boland, G., Khalitov, E., & Crews, F. T. (2003). Association between sweet preference and paternal history of alcoholism in psychiatric and substance abuse patients. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 27(12), 1929– 1936. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.alc.0000099265.60216.23.

Kaye, S. A., White, M. J., & Lewis, I. (2018). Young females' attention toward road safety images: An ERP study of the revised reinforce- ment sensitivity theory. Traffic Injury Prevention, 19(2), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2017.1369531.

Kikuchi, Y., & Watanabe, S. (2000). Personality and dietary habits. Journal of Epidemiology, 10(3), 191–198.

Lange, L. A., Kampov-Polevoy, A. B., & Garbutt, J. C. (2010). Sweet liking and high novelty seeking: Independent phenotypes associated with alcohol-related problems† (article). Alcohol and Alcoholism, 45(5), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agq040.

Langleben, D. D., Busch, E. L., O'Brien, C. P., & Elman, I. (2012). Depot naltrexone decreases rewarding properties of sugar in patients with opioid dependence. Psychopharmacology, 220(3), 559–564. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00213-011-2503-1.

Lee, C. W., & Ho, I. K. (2013). Sex differences in opioid analgesia and addiction: Interactions among opioid receptors and estrogen recep- tors. Molecular Pain, 9, 45.

McCabe, C., Mishor, Z., Cowen, P. J., & Harmer, C. J. (2010). Diminished neural processing of aversive and rewarding stimuli during selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment. Biological Psychiatry, 67(5), 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych. 2009.11.001.

Meier, B. P., Moeller, S. K., Riemer-Peltz, M., & Robinson, M. D. (2012). Sweet taste preferences and experiences predict prosocial infer- ences, personalities, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0025253.

Mello, N. K., Negus, S. S., Knudson, I. M., Kelly, M., & Mendelson, J. H. (2008). Effects of estradiol on cocaine self-administration and co- caine discrimination by female rhesus monkeys. Neuropsychopharmacology, 33, 783–795.

Mello, N. K., Knudson, I. M., Kelly, M., Fivel, P. A., & Medelson, J. H. (2011). Effects of progesterone and testosterone on cocaine self- administration and cocaine discrimination by female rhesus mon- keys. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36, 2187–2199.

Mulligan, E. M., Nelson, B. D., Infantolino, Z. P., Luking, K. R., Sharma, R., & Hajcak, G. (2018). Effects of menstrual cycle phase on electrocortical response to reward and depressive symptoms in women. Psychophysiology, 55, e13268. https://doi.org/10.1111/ psyp.13268.

Quilty, L. C., DeYoung, C. G., Oakman, J. M., & Bagby, R. M. (2014). Extraversion and behavioral activation: Integrating the components of approach (Article). Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 87– 94. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.834440.

Reynolds, W. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125.

Sagioglou, C., & Greitemeyer, T. (2016). Individual differences in bitter taste preferences are associated with antisocial personality traits. Appetite, 96, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.031.

Saliba, A. J., Wragg, K., & Richardson, P. (2009). Sweet taste preference and personality traits using a white wine (Article). Food Quality and Preference, 20(8), 572–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual. 2009.05.009.

Schroeder, J. A., Niculescu, M., & Unterwald, E. M. (2003). Cocaine alters mu but not delta or kappa opioid receptor-stimulated in situ [35S]GTPgammaS binding in rat brain. Synapse, 47(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/syn.10148.

Sena-Esteves, M. M., Mota, M., & Malfeito-Ferreira, M. (2018). Patterns of sweetness preference in red wine according to consumer charac- terisation (Article). Food Research International, 106, 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.12.043.

Snaith, R. P., Hamilton, M., Morley, S., Humayan, A., Hargreaves, D., & Trigwell, P. (1995). A scale for the assessment of hedonic tone the Snaith-Hamilton pleasure scale. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 167(1), 99–103.

Strauss, G. P., & Cohen, A. S. (2017). A transdiagnostic review of neg- ative symptom phenomenology and etiology. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 43, 712–719.

Sofuoglu, M., Dudish-Poulsen, S., Nelson, D., Pentel, P. R., & Hatsukami, D. K. (1999). Sex and menstrual cycle differences in the subjective effects from smoked cocaine in humans. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 7(3), 274–283.

Treadway, M. T., & Zald, D. H. (2011). Reconsidering anhedonia in depression: Lessons from translational neuroscience. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 537–555. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.neubiorev.2010.06.006.

Tsypes, A., Owens, M., Hajcak, G., & Gibb, B. E. (2018). Neural reward responsiveness in children who engage in nonsuicidal self-injury: an ERP study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59, 1289– 1297. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12919.

Tucci, S. A., Murphy, L. E., Boyland, E. J., Dye, L., & Halford, J. C. (2010). Oral contraceptive effects on food choice during the follic- ular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle. A laboratory based study. Appetite, 55(3), 388–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet. 2010.06.005.

Vittengl, J. R., Clark, L. A., Thase, M. E., & Jarrett, R. B. (2015). Predictors of longitudinal outcomes after unstable response to acute-phase cognitive therapy for major depressive disorder. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 52(2), 268–277. https://doi.org/10. 1037/pst0000021.

Weafer, J., Burkhardt, A., & de Wit, H. (2014). Sweet taste liking is associated with impulsive behaviors in humans. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh. 2014.00228.

Weafer, J., Lyon, N., Hedeker, D., & de Wit, H. (2017). Sweet taste liking is associated with subjective response to amphetamine in women but not men. Psychopharmacology, 234(21), 3185–3194. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00213-017-4702-x.

Wronski, M., Skrok-Wolska, D., Samochowiec, J., Ziolkowski, M., Swiecicki, L., Bienkowski, P., et al. (2007). Perceived intensity and pleasantness of sucrose taste in male alcoholics. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 42(2), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agl097.

248 J Psychopathol Behav Assess (2019) 41:235–248