Cited by 153Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorRegulation of Appetite and Obesity

Delay discounting moderates the effect of food reinforcement on energy intake among non-obese women

Open access
Rollins, Brandi Y., Dearing, Kelly K., Epstein, Leonard H.·2010·Appetite

Abstract

Recent theoretical approaches to food intake hypothesize that eating represents a balance between reward-driven motivation to eat versus inhibitory executive function processes, however this hypothesis remains to be tested. The objective of the current study was to test the hypothesis that the motivation to eat, operationalized by the relative reinforcing value (RRV) of food, and inhibitory processes, assessed by delay discounting (DD), interact to influence energy intake in an ad libitum eating task. Female subjects (n = 24) completed a DD of money procedure, RRV task, and an ad libitum eating task in counterbalanced sessions. RRV of food predicted total energy intake, however the effect of the RRV of food on energy intake was moderated by DD. Women higher in DD and RRV of food consumed greater total energy, whereas women higher in RRV of food but lower in DD consumed less total energy. Our findings support the hypothesis that reinforcing value and executive function mediated processes interactively influence food consumption.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2010.07.014

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spitzer RL Devlin MJ Walsh B Hasin D Wing R Marcus M 1992 Binge eating disorder: A multisite field trial of the diagnostic criteria International Journal of Eating Disorders 11 191 203

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rollins, B. Y., Dearing, K. K., & Epstein, L. H.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Epstein, Leonard H.
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-12
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
420-425
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2060665624
Cited by
153
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
9.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (F31HL092721)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD039778)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
Keywords
delay discounting, food reinforcement, energy intake, ad libitum feeding, inhibitory control, executive function, non-obese women, moderation
MeSH terms
Adult, Appetite, Energy Intake, Female, Food Preferences, Humans, Motivation, Reward, Satiety Response, Young Adult, Executive Function

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