ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026
The hedonic expectancy gap: a framework for understanding intention failure in precontemplation.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper proposes the Hedonic Expectancy Gap, the signed discrepancy between anticipated and experienced pleasantness during behavior initiation (𝝙 = Reality - Forecast), as a proximal mechanism linking desire for change to intention formation. The purpose is to formalize a persistent ambiguity in the Transtheoretical Model: precontemplation is defined by absent intention, yet "unready" individuals are often treated in practice and in systems as lacking desire. This paper first summarizes how this practitioner- and systems-level inference has become dominant. It then synthesizes convergent evidence that many precontemplators desire change but expect initiation to feel worse than it typically does, consistent with affective-forecasting findings that forecasts are systematically inaccurate and behaviorally decisive. Finally, the paper specifies the Hedonic Expectancy Gap as a testable variable, and outlines a minimal cycle consisting of a time-locked forecast, bounded micro-test, immediate post-experience rating, 𝝙 computation, and neutral practitioner elicitation, designed to quantify hedonic prediction error and support recalibration. The Hedonic Expectancy Gap could provide a practical measurement-and-intervention scaffold for integrative health coaching and digital-health design by distinguishing expectancy-blocked non-initiation from genuine disinterest, and clarifying how affective expectation can suppress intention even when outcome value and capability are otherwise favorable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.