↓ 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, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

4 tweeters
1 Redditor

Readers on

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

Watson P, Wiers RW, Hommel B, de Wit S


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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 4 3%
Italy 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 128 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 29%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 32 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 66 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 10%
Neuroscience 13 9%
Unspecified 12 9%
Other 17 12%

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 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from Appetite
of 1,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 107,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Appetite
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 60th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 107,132 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.