Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41646912›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Comfort eating or toasting to your success? Self-gifting choices vary between good and bad days.

Annelie J Harvey, Suzanna E Forwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Annelie J HarveySchool of Psychology, Sport and Sensory Science, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Suzanna E ForwoodSchool of Psychology, Sport and Sensory Science, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research suggests people are motivated to self-gift to either reward or console themselves. Little research has considered whether these motivations predict different types of food/alcohol or non-food self-gifting behaviors. In the current study, 280 participants were recruited online and randomly assigned to imagine either a good, bad or average (control) day at work. Participants then reported their likelihood/probability of engaging in different self-gifting behaviors (an alcoholic drink, a takeaway, a chocolate bar, an online shopping spree and a bubble bath). Relevant predictor variables (deservingness, self-esteem and the three-factor eating questionnaire) and demographic variables (age and gender) were also controlled for in the analysis. Results revealed that participants opted to self-gift food/alcohol and non-food, over and above other predictor variables, depending on the type of day they imagined. After imagining a bad (versus an average) day, participants were more likely to want to indulge in an alcoholic drink, a takeaway, a chocolate bar and a bubble bath, suggesting these items are primarily motivated by a desire for self- console. Indulging in a takeaway was the only self-gifting item that was motivated by both a desire to self-reward and self-console. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Indexed as

alcoholfoodself-consolationself-giftingself-reward

Identifiers

PMID41646912
PMCPMC12871395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.