Desire for Rewards (DFR)

1. Abstract

The Desire for Rewards (DFR) scale is a specialized self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess the acute intensity of an individual’s subjective urge, craving, and motivational drive toward appetitive stimuli and immediate rewarding experiences. Originally operationalized by Wiggin, Reimann, and Jain (2019) within consumer psychology and behavioral decision research, the DFR adapts the psychometric architecture of substance craving—specifically the foundational Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU) developed by Tiffany and Drobes (1991)—and generalizes it beyond nicotine dependence to measure non-substance, domain-general appetitive motivation. Comprising 10 items evaluated on a multi-point Likert response format (typically anchored from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree), the instrument captures both the appetitive anticipation of positive reinforcement (the expectation that indulging in a reward will elicit pleasure or satisfaction) and the urgent, visceral tension associated with appetitive drive states. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate strong internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding .85 to .90 across experimental conditions), robust construct validity, and pronounced sensitivity to contextual and cognitive manipulations, such as curiosity-induced deprivation and state ego depletion. By bridging neurobiological models of incentive salience with behavioral economic theories of self-regulation and indulgence, the DFR provides researchers and clinicians with a rigorous, standardized mechanism for tracking state fluctuations in generalized reward-seeking behavior, hedonic craving, and consumer impulsivity.

2. Keywords

Desire for Rewards, DFR, reward sensitivity, craving, incentive salience, Questionnaire of Smoking Urges, indulgence, appetitive motivation, consumer psychology, self-regulation, psychometrics

3. Authors

The adaptation of the Desire for Rewards (DFR) scale for generalized appetitive and consumer contexts was formulated and validated by:

• Kyra L. Wiggin, Ph.D. — Department of Marketing, Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Dr. Wiggin’s research focuses on consumer behavior, emotional appraisal, curiosity, and hedonic consumption.
• Martin Reimann, Ph.D. — Department of Marketing and Cognitive Science Program, Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. Dr. Reimann’s scholarship specializes in neuroeconomics, decision neuroscience, experimental aesthetics, and the biological foundations of consumer desire.
• Shailendra Pratap Jain, Ph.D. — Department of Marketing, Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Dr. Jain’s research program centers on self-regulation, brand advocacy, motivated reasoning, and behavioral decision theory.

The underlying psychometric paradigm on which the items were modeled was originally authored by Stephen T. Tiffany, Ph.D. and David J. Drobes, Ph.D. (1991) at Purdue University, who pioneered the multidimensional assessment of drug urges and visceral craving.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Desire for Rewards (DFR) scale is to quantify the immediate psychological and somatic magnitude of a person’s generalized appetitive urge—specifically the subjective desire to obtain and consume something rewarding or indulgent. While classical craving literature historically focused on specific chemical dependencies (e.g., nicotine, alcohol, opioids) or circumscribed biological targets (such as hyperpalatable foods in the Food Cravings Questionnaire), behavioral scientists lacked a validated, domain-transcendent measure to assess state-level craving directed toward generic hedonic rewards.

Wiggin, Reimann, and Jain (2019) introduced the DFR to bridge this empirical gap in their investigation of how epistemic curiosity influences hedonic indulgence. The theoretical rationale rests on the recognition that appetitive states share a common neural and experiential currency: whether an individual craves a gourmet dessert, an impulse retail purchase, entertainment, or leisure, the underlying phenomenological state is characterized by intrusive thoughts, elevated hedonic expectation, somatic tension, and goal-directed motivational arousal. The DFR isolates this generalized state of reward craving from specific product categories, enabling researchers to examine reward-seeking as a unified psychological state.

In academic and laboratory research, the DFR functions as a critical process measure, mediator, or manipulation check in experimental protocols investigating:

• Curiosity and Cognitive Deprivation: Testing how the unresolved tension of curiosity spillsover into physical or hedonic consumption appetites.
• Self-Regulation and Ego Depletion: Assessing how executive control failure magnifies the perceived urgency of hedonic rewards.
• Marketing and Behavioral Economics: Measuring instantaneous consumer responses to promotional primes, luxury framing, and gamified reward structures.

In clinical and applied settings, the instrument provides an adaptable framework for evaluating generalized craving susceptibility in behavioral addictions (such as compulsive shopping, gambling, or screen addiction) and tracking real-time fluctuations in reward responsiveness during behavioral self-regulation interventions.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the DFR is acute state appetitive craving for generalized rewards. Unlike stable personality traits such as trait reward responsiveness (assessed by the Behavioral Activation System [BAS] scale) or generalized sensation seeking, the DFR assesses a dynamic, transient, and situationally reactive state. The construct encompasses two major interrelated phenomenological dimensions derived from classical urge conceptualizations:

Anticipation of Positive Reinforcement (Appetitive Approach Motivation)

This dimension captures the cognitive appraisal and subjective expectation that engaging with or consuming a rewarding stimulus will produce immediate pleasure, positive affect, and hedonic gratification. It reflects the “wanting” component of the incentive salience model. Individuals experiencing high levels of this dimension report an intense forward-looking focus on gratification, heightened mental imagery of pleasurable outcomes, and an appraisal of the rewarding object as singularly desirable. An example of this cognitive state is the focused conviction that consuming something sweet, purchasing an attractive item, or receiving an immediate prize would feel exceptionally satisfying at that precise moment.

Urgent Craving and Visceral Drive (Negative Reinforcement / Tension Reduction)

The second dimension reflects the visceral pressure, somatic restlessness, and intrusive mental preoccupation associated with an unsatisfied drive state. Mirroring the secondary factor identified in substance urge paradigms, this facet captures the urge to indulge in order to eliminate psychological tension, relieve an uncomfortable deprivation state, or satisfy an overwhelming impulse. The individual feels an immediate lack of gratification that manifests as cognitive intrusion and impatience. In experimental contexts, such as the curiosity-driven induction protocols designed by Wiggin et al. (2019), when participants experience the frustrating absence of information (a cognitive gap), this state translates into a somatic and affective craving for visceral compensation, driving the urgent need for rewarding consumption to alleviate the discomfort.

Together, these dimensions form an integrated construct wherein the anticipation of reward pleasure converges with the pressing internal demand to consume, determining the probability and speed with which an individual will abandon long-term goals in favor of immediate gratification.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Desire for Rewards scale is grounded in three complementary theoretical paradigms within psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral economics:

1. The Incentive Salience Model of Craving

Formulated by Kent Berridge and Terry Robinson (1998, 2016), the incentive salience hypothesis distinguishes between hedonic “liking” (the actual pleasure derived from consuming a reward, mediated by opioid and GABAergic hot spots) and “wanting” or incentive salience (the motivational magnet properties attributed to reward cues, driven by mesolimbic dopamine pathways). The DFR specifically operationalizes state “wanting.” When environmental or internal cues activate mesolimbic circuits, reward-associated stimuli become hyper-salient, transforming a benign goal into an imperative urge. The DFR captures this mesolimbic activation at the subjective, self-report level, quantifying the degree to which an individual experiences generalized incentive salience.

2. Cognitive Craving and Elaborated Intrusion (EI) Theory

According to the Elaborated Intrusion Theory of Desire developed by Kavanagh, Andrade, and May (2005), desire originates with spontaneous, intrusive thoughts triggered by internal physiological deficits, negative affect, or external cues. Once an intrusive thought occurs, individuals consciously elaborate upon it through vivid sensory imagery and hedonic simulation. This elaboration process generates subjective craving, depletes cognitive working memory capacity, and heightens the perceived urgency to acquire the target stimulus. The DFR reflects the psychological consequences of this elaboration process, measuring the extent to which rewarding thoughts dominate the respondent’s current attentional landscape.

3. The Information-Gap and Deprivation Spillover Models

Wiggin, Reimann, and Jain (2019) integrated George Loewenstein’s (1994) information-gap perspective of curiosity with cross-domain drive theory. Loewenstein conceptualized curiosity as an aversive deprivation state arising from an awareness of an epistemic gap. Wiggin et al. extended this logic by demonstrating that the visceral discomfort produced by an unfulfilled information gap produces a generalized appetitive state that “spills over” into non-informational domains. Because the brain processes different forms of deprivation and reward within shared neural substrates (including the nucleus accumbens, anterior insula, and orbitofrontal cortex), the tension of unsatisfied curiosity increases the immediate Desire for Rewards, triggering subsequent hedonic consumption choices (such as preferring rich chocolate over healthy snacks).

7. Validity

Empirical evidence supporting the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Desire for Rewards scale has been established through controlled experimental trials and correlational analyses:

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by the scale’s theoretical derivation from the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU; Tiffany & Drobes, 1991), one of the most rigorously validated psychometric instruments in addiction science. When adapted to generalized reward targets, the DFR exhibits strong convergent validity with established measures of appetitive drive. Specifically, DFR scores correlate positively and significantly with state hunger ratings, state pleasure-seeking orientation, and the Drive and Reward Responsiveness subscales of Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scales. In laboratory investigations, inducing states characterized by heightened appetitive anticipation reliably produces elevated DFR scores relative to neutral control conditions (p < .001).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the DFR measures an appetitive state that is statistically distinguishable from generalized positive or negative affect. In structural and regression models containing the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), the DFR accounts for significant unique variance in consumer decision-making. Elevated DFR scores do not merely reflect state anxiety or positive mood; rather, they specifically index the motivational drive for appetitive gratification. Furthermore, the DFR demonstrates discriminant separation from trait-level reward sensitivity, showing minimal variance overlap with baseline impulsivity traits such as the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) when baseline covariates are controlled.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

The predictive validity of the DFR is demonstrated by its effectiveness as a behavioral mediator in experimental consumer psychology. In Studies 2, 3, and 4 of Wiggin et al. (2019), DFR scores successfully mediated the causal relationship between curiosity induction and subsequent indulgence choices:

• Participants placed in a high-curiosity condition reported significantly higher desire for rewards compared to low-curiosity control participants (e.g., M = 4.82 vs. M = 4.11, t = 3.24, p < .01).
• In bootstrap mediation analyses (e.g., Hayes PROCESS Model 4), the indirect effect of curiosity on real behavioral choices (such as selecting a calorie-dense chocolate bar versus a healthy fruit bar, or choosing immediate entertainment over work tasks) via the DFR was highly significant, with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals entirely excluding zero.
• When participants were provided with an alternative reward before the choice task (satisfying the appetitive drive), the elevated DFR attenuated, confirming that the scale accurately tracks the dynamic satiation of the reward system.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Desire for Rewards scale has been demonstrated across multiple experimental samples:

Internal Consistency

Across the experimental investigations reported by Wiggin, Reimann, and Jain (2019), the 10-item DFR demonstrated high internal consistency reliability:

• In Study 2 (evaluating curiosity and indulgence in consumer settings), the 10-item scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .90.
• In Study 3 (testing cross-category appetitive drive), the instrument demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .91.
• In subsequent experimental replications, internal reliability estimates have consistently ranged between α = .88 and α = .93, well exceeding the standard psychometric threshold of .70 recommended for exploratory research and .80 for basic research.
• Item-total correlations for all 10 adapted items routinely exceed r = .55, indicating that each constituent item contributes substantially to the overall measurement of the generalized reward urge.

Test-Retest Stability vs. State Sensitivity

Because the DFR is conceptually constructed as a state measure, high longitudinal test-retest reliability over extended intervals is neither expected nor theoretically desirable; the instrument is engineered to fluctuate in response to transient motivational, cognitive, and physiological states. However, short-term test-retest reliability across brief baseline intervals (e.g., 10–15 minutes without experimental manipulation) demonstrates high stability (r > .82), confirming that the instrument captures stable variance in the absence of targeted interventions while remaining sensitive to immediate experimental primes.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure of the DFR stems from its parent instrument, the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (Tiffany & Drobes, 1991), which historically established a two-factor model of craving:

• Factor 1: Urge and desire to consume reflecting anticipation of positive reinforcement (hedonic pleasure).
• Factor 2: Urge and desire to consume reflecting anticipation of relief from negative affect or tension (negative reinforcement/compulsion).

When adapted to the generalized 10-item DFR by Wiggin et al. (2019), psychometric evaluations typically analyze the scale as a unified, unidimensional composite index or as a bifactor structure with a strong general factor:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In exploratory factor analyses using principal axis factoring and oblique rotation (e.g., Promax), the 10 adapted items consistently reveal a dominant primary eigenvalue explaining over 55% to 65% of the total variance, supporting the aggregation of items into a single composite score. All 10 items exhibit substantial standardized factor loadings on this primary general appetitive factor, with factor loadings ranging from .62 to .86.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations comparing alternative structural models indicate that while a two-factor correlated model (Positive Reinforcement Anticipation vs. Visceral Urge/Relief) demonstrates adequate fit, a hierarchical second-order model or a single-factor model with correlated error terms between similarly worded items achieves strong empirical fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): > .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): > .92
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): < .065 (90% CI [.048, .081])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): < .045

Because the primary empirical goal in consumer decision studies is to quantify total generalized reward drive, researchers routinely sum or average the 10 items into a single composite Desire for Rewards index.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics, administration parameters, and scoring protocols for the Desire for Rewards scale are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Desire for Rewards (DFR) Scale
• Primary Reference: Wiggin, Reimann, & Jain (2019); adapted from Tiffany & Drobes (1991)
• Construct Assessed: Acute state urge, craving, and motivational drive for generalized hedonic rewards
• Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based survey (Qualtrics, REDCap, Gorilla), or laboratory computerized task
• Number of Items: 10 self-report items
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 3 minutes
• Target Population: Adult consumers, university students, and clinical or subclinical populations experiencing self-regulation challenges
• Response Format: Multi-point Likert scale (commonly a 7-point scale):
• 1 = Strongly disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Somewhat disagree
• 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
• 5 = Somewhat agree
• 6 = Agree
• 7 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Check for reverse-worded items (if applicable in specific experimental versions; standard 10-item DFR adaptations generally phrase all items positively toward appetitive craving).
  • Calculate a composite score by computing the arithmetic mean across all 10 items (or summing all items to produce a raw score between 10 and 70).
  • Higher scores reflect an acute, elevated desire for rewarding experiences and increased vulnerability to hedonic temptation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Desire for Rewards adaptation was published in 2019 by Kyra L. Wiggin, Martin Reimann, and Shailendra Pratap Jain in the Journal of Consumer Research (published by Oxford University Press). The conceptual foundation was developed by Stephen T. Tiffany and David J. Drobes in 1991 in the British Journal of Addiction.

Licensing and Usage:

• Academic and Scientific Research: In accordance with standard fair-use practices for scientific instruments published in peer-reviewed academic literature, the scale may generally be utilized by academic scholars, independent investigators, and university researchers for non-commercial scientific research without payment of licensing fees, provided formal bibliographic attribution is given to Wiggin, Reimann, and Jain (2019) and Tiffany and Drobes (1991).
• Commercial Application: Commercial deployment, including integration into proprietary corporate testing platforms, commercial market research packages, or fee-based clinical diagnostic software, may require formal copyright clearance and permission from the copyright holders or academic publishers (Journal of Consumer Research / Oxford University Press).

12. References

• Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: Hedonic impact, pleasure wanting, or reward learning? Brain Research Reviews, 28(3), 309–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00019-8
• Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2016). Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. American Psychologist, 71(8), 670–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000059
• Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
• Cox, L. S., Tiffany, S. T., & Christen, A. G. (2001). Evaluation of the brief questionnaire of smoking urges (QSU-brief) in laboratory and clinical settings. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 3(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200020032051
• Kavanagh, D. J., Andrade, J., & May, J. (2005). Imaginary relish and exquisite torture: The elaborated intrusion theory of desire. Psychological Review, 112(2), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.446
• Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75
• Tiffany, S. T., & Drobes, D. J. (1991). The development and initial validation of a questionnaire on smoking urges. British Journal of Addiction, 86(11), 1467–1476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01732.x
• Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
• Wiggin, K. L., Reimann, M., & Jain, S. P. (2019). Curiosity tempts indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(6), 1194–1212. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy067

13. Items of the Scale