English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Habitual processes are often seen as the mechanisms underlying various suboptimal behaviors. Moors, Boddez, and De Houwer (2017) challenged this view, arguing that the influence of goaldirected processes may be underestimated in explaining suboptimal behavior. Much evidence for habitual processes in humans comes from studies that used an outcome devaluation test within a task called the Fabulous Fruit Game (FFG; de Wit, Niry, Wariyar, Aitken, & Dickinson, 2007). In particular, poor performance on the FFG has been taken as evidence for increased reliance on habits. Recently, however, it was shown that the outcome devaluation test in the FFG targets the wrong outcome, which likely leads to an overestimation of habitual processes (De Houwer, Tanaka, Moors, & Tibboel, 2018). We propose, in addition, that previous findings of differences in performance on the FFG do not reflect differences in habitual and goal-directed processing, but rather depend on differences in learning conditions such as task difficulty, and the opportunity, capacity, and motivation to learn the relevant contingencies. Our study shows that a lack of motivation leads to a pattern that would usually be interpreted as evidence for habits when in fact the behavior is goal-directed.

Don’t make a habit out of it: Impaired learning conditions can make goal-directed behavior seem habitual.