People often keep engaging in behaviors that used to be successful in the past but which are knowingly no longer effective in the current situation, so called action slips. Such action slips are often explained with stimulus-driven processes in which behavior is caused by a stimulus-response association and without information about the outcome of the behavior. This process is contrasted with a goal-directed process in which behavior is selected because it is expected to lead to a desired outcome. Failing to act in line with changes in the outcome, is taken as evidence for stimulus-driven processes. Stimulus-driven processes are assumed to get installed after overtraining and to be deployed under poor operating conditions. In line with this, previous research has found that action slips are more likely to occur after extensive training and when under time pressure. We propose an alternative goal-directed explanation according to which action slips are not caused by a stimulus-driven process, but rather by a goal-directed process that relies on old, no longer accurate, outcome information. In the current study, participants learned four stimulus-response-outcome contingencies during a single (i.e., moderate training) or a four-day training schedule (i.e., extensive training). Afterwards two contingencies were reversed. Results show that after extensive training and when under time pressure, participants not only committed more action slips but also reported more old response-outcome contingencies in line with these action slips. This is consistent with the goal-directed explanation that action slips result from a reliance on old, no longer accurate outcome information.

People often engage in unhealthy eating despite having an explicit goal to follow a healthy diet, especially under certain conditions such as a lack of time. A promising explanation from the value accumulation account is that food choices are based on the sequential consideration of the values of multiple outcomes, such as health and taste outcomes. Unhealthy choices may result if taste is considered before health. We examined whether making a health outcome more salient could alter this order, thereby leading to more healthy choices even under time pressure. Two studies examined the time-dependent effect of outcome values and salience on food choices. Participants first completed priming trials on which they rated food items on healthiness (health condition), tastiness (taste condition), or both healthiness and tastiness (control condition). They then completed blocks of binary choice trials between healthy and tasty items. The available response time was manipulated continuously in Study 1 (N = 161) and categorically in Study 2 (N = 318). As predicted, results showed that the values of health and taste outcomes influenced choices and that priming led to more choices in line with the primed outcomes even when time was scarce. We did not obtain support for the prediction that the priming effect is time-dependent in the sense that primed outcomes are considered before non-primed outcomes. Together, these findings suggest that increasing the value and salience of a health outcome may be effective ways to increase healthy choices, even under poor conditions such as time pressure.