Explicit and Implicit Devaluation Effects of Food-Specific Response Inhibition Training

Abstract

The overvaluation of reward-associated stimuli such as energy-dense foods can drive compulsive eating behaviours, including overeating. Previous research has shown that training individuals to inhibit their responses towards appetitive stimuli can lead to their devaluation, providing a potential avenue for behaviour change. Over two preregistered experiments, we investigated whether training participants to inhibit their responses to specific foods would be effective in reducing their evaluations when these were assessed using both explicit and implicit measures. Participants completed an online session of go/no-go training with energy-dense foods that were consistently associated with either responding (go) or inhibiting a response (no-go). An ‘explicit’ devaluation effect was expected as a reduction in self-reported liking from pre-to post-training for no-go items compared to both go items and foods that were not presented during training (untrained items). An ‘implicit’ devaluation effect was then measured using the affective priming paradigm, by comparing differences in reaction times for congruent and incongruent trials (i.e., priming effects) between food primes. Experiment 1 revealed conclusive evidence for small-to-medium devaluation effects both in terms of explicit ratings and priming effects. We also observed that the priming effect for no-go items was close to zero. Experiment 2 successfully replicated most of the preregistered and exploratory outcomes from Experiment 1 except for the priming effect for untrained items. Potential explanations for this discrepancy are discussed but overall, these findings provide further support for a devaluation effect of response inhibition training. To our knowledge, our study provides the first evidence that training-induced devaluation can potentially be captured by affective priming measures, but more research is needed to further assess their sensitivity before they can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of action underlying devaluation effects.

Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation

“…The total score varies between 0 and 35, with a larger score indicating a higher level of ‘restrained eating’. They then reported their height (in centimeters), weight (in kilos), how hungry they were (with a 9-point Likert scale, 1 = Not at all , 9 = Very much ), and when they had their last meal (‘Less than 1 hour ago’, ‘1–3 hours ago’, ‘3–5 hours ago’, ‘More than 5 hours ago’, see Tzavella & Chambers, 2023 ). They were then debriefed, thanked, and received one course credit as compensation.…”

Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on stimulus evaluation

“…The total score varies between 0 and 35, with a larger score indicating a higher level of 'restrained eating'. They then reported their height (in centimeters), weight (in kilos), how hungry they were (with a 9-point Likert scale, 1 = Not at all, 9 = Very much), and when they had their last meal ('Less than 1 hour ago', '1-3 hours ago', '3-5 hours ago', 'More than 5 hours ago', see Tzavella & Chambers, 2023).…”

Can smartphone‐based response inhibition training elicit sustained changes in appetite, preference, and cravings for energy‐dense foods? A free‐living randomized controlled trial

“…Food stimuli evaluations are typically measured explicitly by asking participants how much they like a food, or to what degree they found it attractive (Adams et al, 2021; Chen et al, 2016; Lawrence, O'Sullivan, et al, 2015; Veling et al, 2013). However, assessments of both explicit liking and implicit wanting are not commonly utilized systematically in experimental designs (but see a recent a study by Tzavella & Chambers, 2023). According to incentive sensitization theory (Morales & Berridge, 2020), liking and wanting are distinct reward‐related constructs that represent the affective response to a rewarding stimulus (i.e., experience of pleasure) and the motivation to pursue or consume it, respectively.…”