↓ Skip to main content

Working for food you don’t desire. Cues interfere with goal-directed food-seeking

Overview of attention for article published in Appetite, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters
1 Redditor


57 Dimensions

Readers on

160 Mendeley
Working for food you don’t desire. Cues interfere with goal-directed food-seeking
Published in
Appetite, August 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.005
Pubmed ID

P. Watson, R.W. Wiers, B. Hommel, S. de Wit


Why do we indulge in food-seeking and eating behaviors at times when we are already fully sated? In the present study we investigated the hypothesis that food-associated cues in the environment can interfere with goal-directed action by eliciting food-seeking that is independent of the current desirability of the outcome. To this end, we used a computerized task in which participants learned to press keys for chocolate and popcorn rewards. Subsequently, we investigated whether satiation on one of these rewards would bias choice toward the other, still desirable, food reward. We found that satiation did indeed selectively reduce responding on the associated key in the absence of food-associated cues. In contrast, in a Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT) test, satiation failed to reduce cue-elicited food-seeking: in line with our hypothesis, cues that had previously been paired with chocolate and popcorn led to increased responding for the signaled food reward, independent of satiation. Furthermore, we show that food-associated cues will not only bias choice toward the signaled food (outcome-specific transfer), but also enhance the vigor of responding generally (general transfer). These findings point to a mechanism that may underlie the powerful control that cues in our obesogenic environment exert over our behavior.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 2%
Italy 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 152 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 28%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Master 20 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 18 11%
Other 37 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 79 49%
Unspecified 17 11%
Neuroscience 16 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Other 20 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2014.
All research outputs
of 12,033,966 outputs
Outputs from Appetite
of 2,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 192,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Appetite
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,033,966 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.