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

Abstract

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.

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

“…Our search identified 24 eligible studies (total m = 24) [ 14 , 17 , 26 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ], 36 independent samples (total k = 36), and a total of 3032 participants (total N = 3032). A complete list of studies and their characteristics can be seen in Table 1 .…”

“…To calculate variances, the correlation between food evaluation in the pre-test and food evaluation in the post-test are also needed. Similar to between-subjects designs, we also conducted a mini meta-analysis (including studies [ 26 , 30 , 35 , 40 , 54 ]) to calculate the “true” correlation between pre- and post-tests, and the correlation was accordingly set at r = 0.54. In addition, for within-subjects designs, we converted effect size estimates and their variances into the between-subjects effect size metric described by Morris and DeShon [ 55 ].…”

“… The effects of food-specific inhibition training on food evaluation [ 14 , 17 , 26 , 30 , 34 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ]. …”

Beyond online participant crowdsourcing: The benefits and opportunities of big team addiction science.

“…Since then, we have expanded this approach to include postgraduate training, with the Alcohol Research Consortium (ARC) fostering collaboration between undergraduate and master's students. Working as a larger research team, we devise a scientifically valid study with plausible hypotheses, robust methodology and high statistical power, and an appropriate analysis plan (for examples, see Adams et al, 2021;Tzavella et al, 2021). To ensure individual contributions and adherence to degree accreditation processes (e.g., British Psychological Society, 2019), our students each propose secondary research questions that they would like to investigate, which usually assess individual differences or moderator variables.…”

Response inhibition training and measures of explicit and implicit food valuation

“…3 This no-go devaluation effect can potentially explain the findings for dietary behaviour change after training, as, for example, an observed reduction in individuals' impulsive food choices for no-go foods (e.g. [15,64,66,67]), food intake (e.g. [34,40,43,52]; also see [5,36]) and even positive weight loss outcomes (e.g.…”