Cited by 123Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorGambling Behavior and Treatments

Investigating the relationship between reward sensitivity, impulsivity, and food addiction: A systematic review

Open access
Maxwell, Aimee L., Gardiner, Elliroma, Loxton, Natalie J.·2020·European Eating Disorders Review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current research was to identify the extent to which reward sensitivity and impulsivity were related to food addiction. METHOD: Forty-five studies, published from 2009 to June 2019, investigating reward sensitivity and/or impulsivity with food addiction as measured by the Yale Food Addiction Scale were reviewed. RESULTS: Reward sensitivity, as measured by the Sensitivity to Reward (SR) scale, was positively associated with food addiction in two studies, but failed to yield consistent results in other studies when measured with the Behavioral Inhibition/Behavioral Activation Scales. Self-report impulsivity, as measured by the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), was consistently associated with food addiction, with attentional impulsivity and motor impulsivity the most consistent subscales. Similarly, food addiction was also consistently associated with Negative Urgency, Positive Urgency, and Lack of Perseverance as measured by the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Food addiction was inconsistently associated with disinhibition, as measured by behavioral tasks, indicating food addiction appears more aligned with self-report measures of impulsivity. CONCLUSIONS: Research in this field is dominated by university student, overweight and obese samples. Additional research is required to further tease out these relationships.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/erv.2732

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 106 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maxwell, A. L., Gardiner, E., & Loxton, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Maxwell, Aimee L.
Venue
European Eating Disorders Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-03-06
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
368-384
ISSN
  • 1072-4133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0968
OpenAlex
W3009135281
Cited by
123
References
106
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Eating Disorders Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Griffith University Postgraduate Research Scholarship
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
food addiction, reward sensitivity, impulsivity, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale, attentional impulsivity, motor impulsivity, negative urgency, positive urgency, lack of perseverance, disinhibition, Yale Food Addiction Scale, self-report measures
MeSH terms
Food Addiction, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Reward

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review