ArticleCommunications psychology2026
The role of affective learning biases in daily food behaviour.
Article in Communications 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cravings contribute to eating behaviours and health, yet how they emerge and translate into consumption remains unclear. Individual biases in how we learn to assign value to cues and actions, through Pavlovian conditioning (sign-tracking and goal-tracking) and reinforcement learning (model-free and model-based), provide a framework for exploring these behaviours. Cravings, emerging from associations between environmental cues and physiological responses, may be amplified by learning biases enhancing the cues' salience (i.e., sign-tracking bias) and habitual behaviour (i.e., model-free). Learning biases may also moderate the relationship between cravings and consumption by intensifying automatic and habitual processes. Lastly, approach bias, which measures automatic processes involved in craving formation, may be associated with learning biases. To test these hypotheses, we conducted a two-week longitudinal study in 81 participants (minimum post-exclusion sample of 65) using ecological momentary assessments via a smartphone-based app to measure high-caloric food cravings, food intake, and approach-avoidance tendencies in daily life. Learning biases were assessed using Pavlovian conditioning and sequential learning tasks. Results indicate that sign-tracking bias was not related to craving intensity or variability, whereas model-free bias was associated with higher mean cravings but not lower day-to-day craving variability. The hypothesis linking cravings to consumption was not tested due to a consumption floor effect, and neither learning bias was associated with approach bias. The healthy-weight sample may explain our null findings, as they may show limited expression of high-caloric food cravings and consumption. Overall, these findings suggest that reinforcement learning tendencies may contribute to everyday craving dynamics.
Identifiers
42855453What 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.