Abstract:This study is the first to demonstrate that a self-referencing task is effective in changing both implicit attitudes and readiness to change eating behavior. Findings indicate that distinct intervention strategies are needed to change implicit and explicit attitudes towards green vegetables.
“…Taken together, our results suggest that urges to engage in pathological eating practices may be mitigated through preventing the conscious perception of eating-associated stimuli/cues (Custers and Aarts, 2010). Future research could extend these findings to subjects prone to “emotional eating” (Hensels and Baines, 2016) to determine whether subliminally augmenting the valences of eating representations motivates actual eating, and whether such motivations may be transitory or cumulative (e.g., Mattavelli et al, 2017). If the latter, the logical next step would be to adapt the proposed procedure for use with anorexic individuals, whose maladaptive belief systems regarding eating constitutes a core element of their pathology (Merwin et al, 2010).…”
When attempting to encourage eating, explicitly providing statements like “eating is pleasant” may produce little effect. This may be due to subjective, negatively-valenced narratives evoked by perception of the verb “eating” (e.g., eating →fat →lonely), overriding any explicitly provided eating-pleasant valence information. In our study, we presented eating-related verbs under subliminal visual conditions to mitigate the onset of eating-associated deliberation. Verbs were linked with neutral or positively valenced terms across independent blocks. Modulations of event-related magnetoencephalographic (MEG) components and parietal activations in the alpha range (8–12 Hz) illustrated a significant effect of valence during pre-lexical time windows. We found significantly greater saliva production and declarations of increasing hunger after eating-related verbs were linked with positive terms. Orally reported preferences did not vary between conditions.
“…Taken together, our results suggest that urges to engage in pathological eating practices may be mitigated through preventing the conscious perception of eating-associated stimuli/cues (Custers and Aarts, 2010). Future research could extend these findings to subjects prone to “emotional eating” (Hensels and Baines, 2016) to determine whether subliminally augmenting the valences of eating representations motivates actual eating, and whether such motivations may be transitory or cumulative (e.g., Mattavelli et al, 2017). If the latter, the logical next step would be to adapt the proposed procedure for use with anorexic individuals, whose maladaptive belief systems regarding eating constitutes a core element of their pathology (Merwin et al, 2010).…”
When attempting to encourage eating, explicitly providing statements like “eating is pleasant” may produce little effect. This may be due to subjective, negatively-valenced narratives evoked by perception of the verb “eating” (e.g., eating →fat →lonely), overriding any explicitly provided eating-pleasant valence information. In our study, we presented eating-related verbs under subliminal visual conditions to mitigate the onset of eating-associated deliberation. Verbs were linked with neutral or positively valenced terms across independent blocks. Modulations of event-related magnetoencephalographic (MEG) components and parietal activations in the alpha range (8–12 Hz) illustrated a significant effect of valence during pre-lexical time windows. We found significantly greater saliva production and declarations of increasing hunger after eating-related verbs were linked with positive terms. Orally reported preferences did not vary between conditions.
“…Another set of studies by Walsh and Kiviniemi [90] and Hensels and Baines [91] provide converging evidence for the positive effects of pairing procedures on food preferences and choice behavior (see also Ebert et al [92] and Mattavelli et al [93]). Differing from previous investigations, both studies presented healthy foods as targets with positive or neutral food-unrelated stimuli as sources (for a similar study in preschool children, see Halbeisen and Walther [47]).…”
Section: Changing Food-related Preferences and Behaviormentioning
confidence: 95%
“…For example, the procedure of Dijksterhuis [65] lasted a total of 30 trials, whereas Martijn et al [16] had 270 trials and Dwyer et al [87] had 24 trials. Moreover, some studies used rather intense affective pictures as evaluative sources [95], whereas others relied on the associated evaluations of self-referential pronouns [93]. Although consistent effects between the magnitude of pairing effects and the frequency of pairings or the intensity of evaluative sources were not obtained in previous meta-analyses [41], individual studies suggest the possibility of inverted u-shape relations between effect magnitude and both pairing frequency and source intensity [62,111].…”
Section: Standardization Manipulation Checks and Dosingmentioning
Pairing procedures are among the most frequently used paradigms for modifying evaluations of target stimuli related to oneself, an object, or a specific situation due to their repeated pairing with evaluative sources, such as positive or negative images or words. Because altered patterns of evaluations can be linked to the emergence and maintenance of disordered cognitions and behaviors, it has been suggested that pairing procedures may provide a simple yet effective means of complementing more complex intervention approaches, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Here, we summarize recent studies that explored the clinical potential of pairing procedures for improving self-esteem, body satisfaction, and food and consumption preferences. While no study has yet combined pairing procedures with CBT, there are several successful examples of pairing procedures in clinically relevant domains and clinical populations. We discuss potential sources of heterogeneity among findings, provide methodological recommendations, and conclude that pairing procedures may bear clinical potential as an add-on to classical psychotherapy.
“…So far, research on IR has mostly focused on establishing or changing evaluations and intentions towards novel stimuli (experiments 1-7) or pre-existing stimuli. For instance, Mattavelli et al [42] used the selfreferencing task, an IR-based paradigm in which stimuli are related with the (generally positive) concept of self, to countercondition green vegetables in a population of participants who did not like green vegetables. This intervention led to more positive implicit attitudes towards green vegetables and to an increased intention to consume them in future.…”
One of the most effective methods of influencing what people like and dislike is to expose them to systematic patterns (or ‘regularities’) in the environment, such as the repeated presentation of a single stimulus (mere exposure), two or more stimuli (evaluative conditioning (EC)) or to relationships between stimuli and behaviour (approach/avoidance). Hughes
et al
. (2016)
J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.
145
, 731–754. (
doi:10.1037/xge0000100
) found that evaluations also emerge when regularities in the environment
intersect
with one another. In this paper, we examined if evaluations established via operant EC and intersecting regularities can be undermined via extinction or revised via counterconditioning. Across seven pre-registered studies (
n
= 1071), participants first completed a learning phase designed to establish novel evaluations followed by one of multiple forms of extinction or counterconditioning procedures designed to undo them. Results indicate that evaluations were—
in general
—resistant to extinction and counterconditioning. Theoretical and practical implications along with future directions are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.