Effects of go/no-go training on food-related action tendencies, liking and choice

How pre-processing decisions affect the reliability and validity of the approach-avoidance task: Evidence from simulations and multiverse analyses with six datasets

Reaction time (RT) data are often pre-processed before analysis by rejecting outliers and errors and aggregating the data. In stimulus-response compatibility paradigms such as the approach-avoidance task (AAT), researchers often decide how to pre-process the data without an empirical basis, leading to the use of methods that may harm data quality. To provide this empirical basis, we investigated how different pre-processing methods affect the reliability and validity of the AAT. Our literature review revealed 108 unique pre-processing pipelines among 163 examined studies. Using empirical datasets, we found that validity and reliability were negatively affected by retaining error trials, by replacing error RTs with the mean RT plus a penalty, and by retaining outliers. In the relevant-feature AAT, bias scores were more reliable and valid if computed with D-scores; medians were less reliable and more unpredictable, while means were also less valid. Simulations revealed bias scores were likely to be less accurate if computed by contrasting a single aggregate of all compatible conditions with that of all incompatible conditions, rather than by contrasting separate averages per condition. We also found that multilevel model random effects were less reliable, valid, and stable, arguing against their use as bias scores. We call upon the field to drop these suboptimal practices to improve the psychometric properties of the AAT. We also call for similar investigations in related RT-based bias measures such as the implicit association task, as their commonly accepted pre-processing practices involve many of the aforementioned discouraged methods. HIGHLIGHTS: • Rejecting RTs deviating more than 2 or 3 SD from the mean gives more reliable and valid results than other outlier rejection methods in empirical data • Removing error trials gives more reliable and valid results than retaining them or replacing them with the block mean and an added penalty • Double-difference scores are more reliable than compatibility scores under most circumstances • More reliable and valid results are obtained both in simulated and real data by using double-difference D-scores, which are obtained by dividing a participant's double mean difference score by the SD of their RTs.

Consequences of positive vs. negative information concerning the amount of sugar consumption on appetite, mood, and visual food cue attention: Findings from two online interventions

BACKGROUND

Eating too much sugar is associated with many negative health effects. Two brief online interventions were carried out to investigate whether information about the negative consequences of eating high-sugar food vs. positive consequences of eating low-sugar food can change reported appetite, mood, and visual food cue attention.

METHOD

For Study I, participants (n = 201) were allocated to one of three groups: Two groups were asked to list either the negative consequences of high-sugar consumption (negative focus) or the positive consequences of low-sugar consumption (positive focus). The third group carried out a control task (writing a shopping list). For Study II, 200 participants took part in a quiz with questions focusing on either positive, negative, or neutral consequences of high vs. low sugar consumption. Participants evaluated their appetite and mood before and after all interventions (list, quiz) and additionally completed a visual probe task with images depicting high vs. low-sugar food.

RESULTS

In Study I, the positive focus increased appetite for low-sugar food. The negative focus reduced participants' positive mood but did not change reported appetite. In Study II, all quiz conditions decreased appetite for high-sugar foods but did not affect mood. None of the interventions influenced visual attention to the food images.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on negative consequences of a high-sugar diet is less pleasant and is less effective in changing people's appetite than considering the positive aspects of a low-sugar diet. Thus, future interventions should instead spotlight the positive outcomes of a healthy diet.

When not responding to food changes food value: The role of timing

Establishing behavior change toward appetitive foods can be crucial to improve people's health. Food go/no-go training (GNG), in which people respond to some food items and not to other food items depending on the presentation of a go or no-go cue, is a means to establish behavior change. GNG changes the perceived value of food items and food consumption. After GNG, no-go items are rated as less attractive than go and/or untrained items, an empirical phenomenon called the NoGo-devaluation-effect. This effect is not always found, however. One theory-based explanation for these inconsistent results may be found in the timing of the go and no-go cues, which is also inconsistent across studies. Hence, in the present work we conducted two experiments to examine the possible role of go and no-go cue presentation timing in eliciting the NoGo-devaluation-effect. In Experiment 1, we presented the food items before the presentation of go/no-go cues, whereas we reversed this order in Experiment 2. As predicted, the NoGo-devaluation-effect was obtained in Experiment 1. This effect was absent in Experiment 2. Moreover, recognition memory for stimulus-action contingencies moderated the devaluation effect in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2. These results show that NoGo devaluation is dependent on the timing of the NoGo cue, which has theoretical and applied implications for understanding how and when go/no-go training influences food consumption. We propose that the value of food items is updated during go/no-go training to minimize prediction errors, and that this updating process is boosted by attention.

How does Go/No-Go training lead to food devaluation? Separating the effects of motor inhibition and response valence

Palatable, unhealthy food stimuli can be devalued via Go/No-Go (GNG) training that consistently pairs such stimuli with motor inhibition. However, it remains unclear whether this devaluation is caused via learned associations with motor inhibition or via inferential learning based on the valence of emitted motor responses. The present research disentangles the effects of motor assignment and response valence in GNG training through task instructions. In two studies, chocolate stimuli were consistently paired with motor inhibition ("no-go") or with motor excitation ("go"). Task instructions indicated that no-go responses were negatively valenced ("do not take") and that go responses were positively valenced ("take"), or identified no-go responses as positively valenced ("keep") and go as negatively valenced ("throw away"). The results show an effect of response valence on chocolate evaluations, but no effect of motor assignment: Chocolate stimuli were consistently devalued following pairings with a negatively valenced response, regardless of whether this response entailed motor inhibition or excitation. These findings align best with an inferential account of GNG training, suggesting that devaluation effects critically depend on inferential processes regarding motor response valence. GNG training procedures may, therefore, be optimised by disambiguating the valence of go and no-go motor responses prior to training.

Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis

Theories have suggested that food-specific inhibition training could lead to food devaluation which, in turn, may help people to regulate their eating behavior. In this review, we have synthesized the current literature on this topic by conducting a meta-analysis of studies investigating the effects of food-specific inhibition training on food evaluation. We identified 24 studies-with 36 independent samples, 77 effect sizes, and 3032 participants-that met our inclusion criteria. Effect sizes were analyzed using the robust variance estimation in random effects meta-regression technique. The results indicate that food-specific inhibition training can lead to statistically significant reductions in food evaluation. More specifically, it was observed that the effects of training on participants' food evaluation differed according to the type of evaluation; food-specific inhibition training significantly decreased participants' explicit food evaluation, but not their implicit food evaluation. However, because most of the included studies focused on trained food items and short-term outcomes in normal-weight samples, more research is needed on the continuance of the training effects, as well as on the extent to which effects can be generalized to untrained food items or different populations (e.g., overweight or obese individuals).

Effects of go/no-go training on food-related action tendencies, liking and choice

Inhibitory control training effects on behaviour (e.g. 'healthier' food choices) can be driven by changes in affective evaluations of trained stimuli, and theoretical models indicate that changes in action tendencies may be a complementary mechanism. In this preregistered study, we investigated the effects of food-specific go/no-go training on action tendencies, liking and impulsive choices in healthy participants. In the training task, energy-dense foods were assigned to one of three conditions: 100% inhibition (no-go), 0% inhibition (go) or 50% inhibition (control). Automatic action tendencies and liking were measured pre- and post-training for each condition. We found that training did not lead to changes in approach bias towards trained foods (go and no-go relative to control), but we warrant caution in interpreting this finding as there are important limitations to consider for the employed approach-avoidance task. There was only anecdotal evidence for an effect on food liking, but there was evidence for contingency learning during training, and participants were on average less likely to choose a no-go food compared to a control food after training. We discuss these findings from both a methodological and theoretical standpoint and propose that the mechanisms of action behind training effects be investigated further.