Cited by 283Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesBehavioral Health and InterventionsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Model-based learning protects against forming habits

Open access
Gillan, Claire M., Otto, A. Ross, Phelps, Elizabeth A., Daw, Nathaniel D.·2015·Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience

Abstract

Studies in humans and rodents have suggested that behavior can at times be "goal-directed"-that is, planned, and purposeful-and at times "habitual"-that is, inflexible and automatically evoked by stimuli. This distinction is central to conceptions of pathological compulsion, as in drug abuse and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Evidence for the distinction has primarily come from outcome devaluation studies, in which the sensitivity of a previously learned behavior to motivational change is used to assay the dominance of habits versus goal-directed actions. However, little is known about how habits and goal-directed control arise. Specifically, in the present study we sought to reveal the trial-by-trial dynamics of instrumental learning that would promote, and protect against, developing habits. In two complementary experiments with independent samples, participants completed a sequential decision task that dissociated two computational-learning mechanisms, model-based and model-free. We then tested for habits by devaluing one of the rewards that had reinforced behavior. In each case, we found that individual differences in model-based learning predicted the participants' subsequent sensitivity to outcome devaluation, suggesting that an associative mechanism underlies a bias toward habit formation in healthy individuals.

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 · 10.3758/s13415-015-0347-6

Cites

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?

  • Habit formation is blocked while model-based learning is predominant, suggesting inhibitory mechanisms of goal-directed strategy on habitual strategy.

    “Moreover, human studies have shown that habit formation is blocked while model-based learning is predominant, suggesting inhibitory mechanisms of the goal-directed strategy on the habitual strategy43.”

    From Dissociable roles of prefrontal plasticity in decision-making strategy and execution of habitual behavior (2026) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Abstract (page not specified) reports that stronger model-based learning predicted later sensitivity to outcome devaluation, and Experiment 1 Results report an absence of model-based learning among participants who formed habits. This supports a protective association, but not the stronger claim that model-based learning blocks habit formation. The Discussion presents effortful overriding of habits as a possibility, not an established inhibitory mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 283

Authors
Gillan, C. M., Otto, A. R., Phelps, E. A., & Daw, N. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • New York University (US)
  • Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
Corresponding author
Gillan, Claire M.
Venue
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
Published
2015-03-24
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
523-536
ISSN
  • 1530-7026 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-135X
OpenAlex
W2007828825
Cited by
283
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
13.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
model-based learning, model-free learning, habit formation, goal-directed behavior, outcome devaluation, operant conditioning, individual differences, computational models of learning, compulsive behavior, obsessive-compulsive disorder, drug addiction
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Conditioning, Operant, Decision Making, Female, Goals, Habits, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Psychological Tests, Reinforcement, Psychology, 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