Implicit process interventions in eating behaviour: a meta-analysis examining mediators and moderators

Abstract

Dual-process models integrate deliberative and impulsive mental systems and predict dietary behaviours better than deliberative processes alone. Computerized tasks such as the Go/No-Go, Stop-Signal, Approach-Avoidance, and Evaluative Conditioning have been used as interventions to directly alter implicit biases. This meta-analysis examines the effects of these tasks on dietary behaviours, explores potential moderators of effectiveness, and examines implicit bias change as a proposed mechanism. Thirty randomized controlled trials testing implicit bias interventions (47 comparisons) were included in a random-effects meta-analysis, which indicated small cumulative effects on eating-related behavioural outcomes (g =-0.17, CI95 = [-0.29;-0.05], p ALTERING IMPLICIT PROCESSES IN EATING-META-ANALYSIS 2 = .01) and implicit biases (g =-0.18, CI95 = [-0.34;-0.02], p = .02). Task type moderated these effects, with Go/No-Go tasks producing larger effects than other tasks. Effects of interventions on implicit biases were positively related to effects on eating behaviour (B = 0.42, CI95 = [0.02; 0.81], p = .03). Go/No-Go tasks seem to have most potential for altering dietary behaviours through implicit processes. While changes in implicit biases seem related to the effects of these interventions on dietary outcomes, more research should explore whether repeated exposure to implicit bias interventions may have any practical intervention value in real world settings.

No evidence of calorie‐related modulation of N2 in food‐related Go/No‐Go training: A preregistered ERP study

“…Our results indicate that inhibiting responses to pictures of unhealthy foods does not reduce immediate calorie intake. This is in contrast with a growing literature which has found these interventions to be effective (Allom et al, ; Aulbach et al, ; Jones et al, ). The current experiment differs from such intervention studies in that calorie intake was measured at two successive snacking opportunities.…”

“…Since the stimuli are liked less after training, they should also be easier to resist outside the laboratory (Jones et al, 2016;Veling, Lawrence, Chen, van Koningsbruggen, & Holland, 2017). However, only few studies have investigated changes in implicit attitudes toward trained food items as a mechanism of Go/No-Go training (Aulbach et al, 2019;Houben & Jansen, 2015;Kakoschke, Kemps, & Tiggemann, 2017;Verbeken, Braet, Naets, Houben, & Boendermaker, 2018).…”

No evidence of calorie-related modulation of N2 in food-related Go/No-Go training: a pre-registered ERP study

“…Our results indicate that inhibiting responses to pictures of unhealthy foods does not reduce immediate calorie intake. This is contrast with a growing literature which has found these interventions to be effective (Allom et al, 2016;Aulbach et al, 2019;Jones et al, 2016). The current experiment differs from such intervention studies in that calorie intake was measured at two successive snacking opportunities.…”

“…In recent years, the Go/No-Go task has also been used as an intervention tool in which people are asked to withhold their response in reaction to high-calorie foods in order to reduce the approach tendency to unhealthy food stimuli. This type of inhibition training has been shown to reduce subsequent food intake in a laboratory setting and has therefore been proposed as an efficient intervention method to improve dietary behavior (Allom, Mullan, & Hagger, 2016;Aulbach, Knittle, & Haukkala, 2019;Jones et al, 2016). While the Go/No-Go based training may be useful in reducing consumption of unhealthy foods, at least in the short run, the psychological mechanisms through which the behavioral change takes place remains unclear.…”

“…Others have hypothesized and demonstrated that instead (or additionally), repeatedly inhibiting responses to highly evaluated stimuli leads to devaluation of those stimuli, thereby making it easier to control eating behavior even outside the laboratory (Jones et al, 2016;Veling, Lawrence, Chen, van Koningsbruggen, & Holland, 2017). However, only few studies have investigated changes in implicit attitudes towards trained food items as a mechanism of Go/No-Go training Aulbach et al (2019); Houben and Jansen (2015); Kakoschke, Kemps, and Tiggemann (2017); Verbeken, Braet, Naets, Houben, and Boendermaker (2018).…”