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

Abstract

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).

The relationship between meat disgust and meat avoidance—A chicken-and-egg problem

“…As before, this expectation was confirmed for explicit, but not for implicit meat disgust, from simple bivariate correlations of change scores. This may be because implicit attitudes tend to change on different time scales (51)(52)(53)(54), or because our study was not powerful enough to detect a smaller effect, as our post-hoc power analysis suggests. The effect on explicit meat disgust was further confirmed in a regression model predicting changes in this variable: changes in meat intake during Veganuary were most predictive of changes in meat disgust in the expected direction-the more people reduced their meat intake relative to their baseline meat intake, the more their feelings of disgust toward meat grew.…”

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

“…An a priori sample size calculation indicated that 64 (i.e., 32 per group) participants would be minimally sufficient to detect a small to medium effect size of d = .25 based on a within‐between interaction between 3 measurements and 2 groups, a power of 80%, an alpha of 5%, and an intraclass correlation of 70% (Cohen, 1988; Faul et al, 2007). The proposed effect size was extracted from a recent meta‐analysis of controlled studies utilizing the food‐specific Go/No‐Go training paradigm to reduce food evaluations (Yang et al, 2022).…”

“…Although measured in myriad ways, pertinent methods that have been used in previous empirical studies include quicker attentional shift and fixation on a food stimulus (i.e., attentional bias; Field et al, 2016), preference for immediate over delayed food reward (Amlung et al, 2016), and a faster reaction time to select or approach a given food stimulus (Veling et al, 2021). Although cognitive bias modification techniques designed to address these biases have demonstrated efficacy in altering dietary behaviours, primarily in short‐term laboratory settings, the evidence underpinning response inhibition training (RIT) has emerged as the most consistently promising (Allom et al, 2016; Aulbach et al, 2019; Jones et al, 2016; Turton et al, 2016; Yang et al, 2022). RIT ostensibly addresses deficits in inhibitory control upon exposure to energy‐dense, palatable food cues associated with a high reward value (Hofmann et al, 2008; Verbruggen et al, 2014).…”

“…The preponderance of evidence from experimental trials of food‐specific RIT demonstrates a devaluation effect, typically observed by a reduction in explicit ratings of liking (Adams et al, 2017; Chen et al, 2016; Lawrence, Verbruggen, et al, 2015; Lawrence, O'Sullivan, et al, 2015; Najberg et al, 2021; Stice et al, 2017; Veling et al, 2011, 2013). However, the precise mechanism driving this devaluation effect remains unclear, not least of all because of the inconsistent relationship with observable eating behaviour, particularly in susceptible populations, and the heterogeneity in methods and measures adopted in these trials (Carbine & Larson, 2019; Veling, Lawrence, et al, 2017; Yang et al, 2022). 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).…”

Toward a better understanding of durable behavior change by food Go/NoGo training

“…First, repeatedly not responding to a food may lead to the formation of stimulus-stop associations [7], which can automatically suppress the action tendency triggered by the food. Second, not responding to a food can reduce its reward value [8]. This devaluation effect may arise from the hardwired link between inhibition and the aversive system [9,10].…”