Rob Holland

Approach avoidance training in the eating domain: Testing the effectiveness across three single session studies

Dual-process models propose that impulsive behavior plays a key role in the development and maintenance of maladaptive eating patterns. Research outside the eating domain suggests that approach avoidance training, a paradigm which aims to modify automatic behavioral dispositions toward critical stimuli, is an effective tool to weaken unhealthy impulses. The present research tested the effectiveness of approach avoidance training in the eating domain. We conducted three single session studies with varying methodologies in a normal-weight female student population (total Nu2009=u2009258), in which one group was always trained to avoid pictures of unhealthy food and to approach pictures of healthy food or neutral objects. We found no conclusive evidence that approach avoidance training can change participants implicit and explicit food preferences and eating behavior. We discuss the potential and the limitations of approach avoidance training in the eating domain and provide suggestions for future research avenues.

Do impulsive individuals benefit more from food go/no-go training? Testing the role of inhibition capacity in the no-go devaluation effect

Not responding to food items in a go/no-go task can lead to devaluation of these food items, which may help people regulate their eating behavior. The Behavior Stimulus Interaction (BSI) theory explains this devaluation effect by assuming that inhibiting impulses triggered by appetitive foods elicits negative affect, which in turn devalues the food items. BSI theory further predicts that the devaluation effect will be stronger when food items are more appetitive and when individuals have low inhibition capacity. To test these hypotheses, we manipulated the appetitiveness of food items and measured individual inhibition capacity with the stop-signal task. Food items were consistently paired with either go or no-go cues, so that participants responded to go items and not to no-go items. Evaluations of these items were measured before and after go/no-go training. Across two preregistered experiments, we consistently found no-go foods were liked less after the training compared to both go foods and foods not used in the training. Unexpectedly, this devaluation effect occurred for both appetitive and less appetitive food items. Exploratory signal detection analyses suggest this latter finding might be explained by increased learning of stimulus-response contingencies for the less appetitive items when they are presented among appetitive items. Furthermore, the strength of devaluation did not consistently correlate with individual inhibition capacity, and Bayesian analyses combining data from both experiments provided moderate support for the null hypothesis. The current project demonstrated the devaluation effect induced by the go/no-go training, but failed to obtain further evidence for BSI theory. Since the devaluation effect was reliably obtained across experiments, the results do reinforce the notion that the go/no-go training is a promising tool to help people regulate their eating behavior.

Attention! Can choices for low value food over high value food be trained?

People choose high value food items over low value food items, because food choices are guided by the comparison of values placed upon choice alternatives. This value comparison process is also influenced by the amount of attention people allocate to different items. Recent research shows that choices for food items can be increased by training attention toward these items, with a paradigm named cued-approach training (CAT). However, previous work till now has only examined the influence of CAT on choices between two equally valued items. It has remained unclear whether CAT can increase choices for low value items when people choose between a low and high value food item. To address this question in the current study participants were cued to make rapid responses in CAT to certain low and high value items. Next, they made binary choices between low and high value items, where we systematically varied whether the low and high value items were cued or uncued. In two experiments, we found that participants overall preferred high over low value food items for real consumption. More important, their choices for low value items increased when only the low value item had been cued in CAT compared to when both low and high value items had not been cued. Exploratory analyses revealed that this effect was more pronounced for participants with a relatively small value difference between low and high value items. The present research thus suggests that CAT may be used to boost the choice and consumption of low value items via enhanced attention toward these items, as long as the value difference is not too large. Implications for facilitating choices for healthy food are discussed.

When the Frame Fits the Social Picture The Effects of Framed Social Norm Messages on Healthy and Unhealthy Food Consumption

We investigated the influence of framed norm messages about food consumption on motivation to consume, and actual consumption of, healthy and unhealthy foods. We proposed that the effects of positive and negative message frames would vary by the type of underlying norms (i.e., injunctive, descriptive). More specifically, based on information processing theories, it was expected that injunctive norms would be more effective when framed negatively compared with positively, while the opposite was expected for descriptive norms. In both experiments, participants were randomly assigned to one of four framed social norm conditions or a no-norm control condition. In Experiment 1, motivation to consume healthy and unhealthy foods was assessed by means of both indirect and self-report measures. In Experiment 2, actual food consumption was assessed. In both experiments, the predicted interaction was found. Results show that injunctive norms benefit from a negative (vs. positive) frame, while preliminary evidence su...

Is Stopping Something Pleasant Positive Or Negative? Dissociating The Effects Of Implications And Pairings In A Relational Evaluative Conditioning Paradigm

Recent research into evaluative conditioning (EC) shows that information about the relationship between the conditioned and unconditioned stimuli can exert strong effects on the size and direction of EC effect. This finding has been interpreted as support for dual-process models that assume two independent types of EC effects. However, previous research devoted to this question relied on aggregated evaluative measures. These approaches allow for alternative interpretations that challenge dual-process accounts. In three experiments, we developed and validated a multinomial processing tree model that distinguishes an EC effect of the pairings from EC effects of the implications. Our findings suggest that two independent processes contribute to evaluative change in a relational EC paradigm. The model that we developed offers a helpful method for future research in that it allows for an assessment of the effects of manipulations on processes rather than performance on an evaluative measure.

Go/no-go training affects frontal midline theta and mu oscillations to passively observed food stimuli

ABSTRACT The mere perception of high‐calorie food items can trigger strong action tendencies towards these foods. Go/no‐go training has successfully been applied to reduce such action tendencies. This study investigated the electrophysiological mechanisms that may underlie the beneficial effects of go/no‐go training on food consumption. EEG was measured while 19 participants passively observed pictures of food and non‐food items, both before and after the go/no‐go training. During training, 50% of the food and non‐food items were consistently paired with a go/no‐go response. After training, food items that had been associated with a response induced larger mu desynchronization at electrodes over sensorimotor regions, whereas food items that had been associated with withholding from responding induced larger increases in theta power at frontal midline electrodes. These findings suggest that the exerted cognitive control during go/no‐go training with attractive food stimuli may become associated with these stimuli and signal the required level of control during subsequent encounters. HighlightsGo/no‐go training affects food item processing during subsequent passive viewing.Frontal theta power is larger for food items paired with no‐go than go responses.Mu desynchronization is higher for food items paired with go than no‐go responses.The need for cognitive control seems to be tagged to specific stimuli.

Adaptation in conflict: are conflict-triggered control adjustments protected in the presence of motivational distractors?

ABSTRACT Solving a conflict between two response options in an interference task has been found to increase control in a subsequent conflict situation. The present research examined whether such conflict adaptation persists in the presence of distractors that have motivational relevance and are therefore competing for attentional resources (i.e. they signal opportunities for monetary gains or losses contingent on overall task performance). In an adjusted flanker task, motivational (versus neutral versus no) distractors were presented together with the current trial while the previous trial never included any distractor. Accumulated evidence across three studies showed that motivational distractors reduced the conflict adaptation effect. This was found irrespective of the location at which the distractor occurred (Study 1), and independent of its valence (i.e. reward or loss, Study 2). Study 3 and a merged data analysis ruled out low-level alternative explanations. In line with a dual competition account (Pessoa, L. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive control? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 160–166. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.006), our results show that conflict adaptation is not fully protected in the presence of motivational distractors. We discuss whether this should be interpreted as a limitation, or as reflecting the flexibility of the control system in dealing with motivationally relevant information.