Read Craving for Free Online

than in specific, defined examples. Additionally, people tend to believe that their personal connection to an issue renders their conclusions more likely to be accurate, but they discount the effect of a personal connection when assessing other people’s conclusions. 33 This blind spot bias is particularly dangerous when it comes to cravings, as people who struggle with cravings may severely discount the effect that bias plays in their decision-making; this underestimation can, in my experience, result in prolonged and more intense cycles of craving and acting out, as people simply don’t believe that their actions are affected by the cognitive biases we have explored in this chapter.
    The Tenacity of Craving
    “What is allowed us is disagreeable, what is denied us causes us intense desire.”
    — OVID
    Many of the people I have worked with over the years point out how stubborn cravings are. They often describe the sense that something has sunk its teeth into them and is not letting go. The harder they tug to try to remove it, the deeper the bite. Many of my patients describe this as wanting what they cannot have. Psychologists refer to our response to perceived constrained freedom as “reactance.”
    But we don’t always want what we can’t have. Studies in the late 1970s demonstrated that when heroin addicts were given the medication naltrexone, which blocks the effects of heroin and other opiates, their cravings actually went down. Once the addicts were aware that they couldn’t get high, they were less likely to crave! This finding persisted even when they were around other heroin addicts who were actually getting high. 34
    When are we more likely to want what we can’t have? In a classic reactance experiment by Paul Cherulnik and Murray Citrin, 180 college students were shown four posters and asked to rank which was their first, second, third, and fourth choice. 35 They were told they would get their first-choice poster. Cherulnik and Citrin measured the students’ “locus of control” using a validated scale that established whether their locus of control was internal (they tended to believe that they control their own lives) or external (they tended to believe that their lives were controlled by external factors beyond their own control).
    Two days later, they divided the students into three groups: one group was told they lost their third choice because of a shipment problem (impersonal reason). A second group was told that their third-choice poster arrived in limited quantities and that their third choice was removed as an option for them on the basis of personal reasons (an assessment of their scholastic records). Finally, a third group was a control group and was simply asked to re-rate their choices.
    The results were fascinating. The students with an internal locus of control showed an increased desire for the unavailable third-choice poster when the reason for elimination was personal. On the other hand, the students with an external locus of control showed an increased desire for the unavailable third-choice poster when the reason for elimination was impersonal. What does this mean, and what does this have to do with cravings?
    What it means is that it’s not always true that you want what you can’t have. This study shows that what you believe about the reason you can’t have something affects whether or not you want it. If you believe that the primary power that controls your life is also the primary reason you can’t have something, you want it more. This has significant implications when it comes to cravings, because it means that if you can develop a different perspective about why you are experiencing cravings, you may be able to reduce the depth of the bite. In my successful patients who believe in a higher power, when they experience cravings, they don’t blame God. They simply describe it as a part of their illness that they can diminish or alleviate by talking with others and