Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Liking vs. wanting food: Importance for human appetite control and weight regulation

Finlayson, Graham, King, Neil, Blundell, John E.·2007·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Current train of thought in appetite research is favouring an interest in non-homeostatic or hedonic (reward) mechanisms in relation to overconsumption and energy balance. This tendency is supported by advances in neurobiology that precede the emergence of a new conceptual approach to reward where affect and motivation (liking and wanting) can be seen as the major force in guiding human eating behaviour. In this review, current progress in applying processes of liking and wanting to the study of human appetite are examined by discussing the following issues: How can these concepts be operationalised for use in human research to reflect the neural mechanisms by which they may be influenced? Do liking and wanting operate independently to produce functionally significant changes in behaviour? Can liking and wanting be truly experimentally separated or will an expression of one inevitably contain elements of the other? The review contains a re-examination of selected human appetite research before exploring more recent methodological approaches to the study of liking and wanting in appetite control. In addition, some theoretical developments are described in four diverse models that may enhance current understanding of the role of these processes in guiding ingestive behaviour. Finally, the implications of a dual process modulation of food reward for weight gain and obesity are discussed. The review concludes that processes of liking and wanting are likely to have independent roles in characterising susceptibility to weight gain. Further research into the dissociation of liking and wanting through implicit and explicit levels of processing would help to disclose the relative importance of these components of reward for appetite control and weight regulation.

Overview

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.neubiorev.2007.03.004

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 103 references

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Finlayson, G., King, N., & Blundell, J. E.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-01
Volume
31
Issue
7
Pages
987-1002
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2009295793
Cited by
374
References
103
FWCI
6.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Liking vs. wanting food: Importance for human appetite control and weight regulation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.03.004
The paper
Finlayson, G., King, N., & Blundell, J. E. (2007). Liking vs. wanting food: Importance for human appetite control and weight regulation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.03.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.