Preschoolers’ neophobic dispositions mainly target fruits and vegetables. They received a great deal of attention in the past decades as these dispositions represent the main psychological barrier to dietary variety. Recently, children’s food neophobia has been found to be negatively correlated with their categorization performance (i.e., the accuracy to discriminate between food categories). We investigated categorization strategies among neophobic children, tendencies to favor one type of error over the other (misses over false alarms), in order to compensate for their poor categorization performance. To capture children’s categorization strategies, we used the Signal Detection Theory framework. A first experiment assessed 120 3-to-6-years old children’ sensitivity to discriminate between foods and nonfoods as well as their decision criterion (i.e., response strategy). In a second experiment, we manipulated the influence of food processing. The hypothesis was that food processing acts as a sign of human interventions that decreases uncertainty about edibility and thus promotes feelings of safety in the food domain. 137 children were tested on a food versus nonfood categorization task contrasting whole and sliced stimuli. In both experiments, increased levels of food neophobia were significantly associated with poorer categorization sensitivity and with a more conservative decision criterion (i.e., favoring “it is inedible” errors). Additionally, results from Experiment 2 revealed that food processing did not influence neophobic children, whereas their neophilic counterparts adopted a more liberal decision criterion for sliced stimuli than for whole stimuli. These findings are the first demonstration of a relationship between a decision criterion and food neophobia in young children. These results have strong implications for theories of food neophobia and laid the groundwork for designing novel types of food education interventions.
Preschoolers’ neophobic dispositions mainly target fruits and vegetables. They received a great deal of attention in the past decades as these dispositions represent the main psychological barrier to dietary variety. Recently, children’s food neophobia has been found to be negatively correlated with their categorization performance (i.e., the accuracy to discriminate between food categories). We investigated categorization strategies among neophobic children, tendencies to favor one type of error over the other (misses over false alarms), in order to compensate for their poor categorization performance. To capture children’s categorization strategies, we used the Signal Detection Theory framework. A first experiment assessed 120 3-to-6-years old children’ sensitivity to discriminate between foods and nonfoods as well as their decision criterion (i.e., response strategy). In a second experiment, we manipulated the influence of food processing. The hypothesis was that food processing acts as a sign of human interventions that decreases uncertainty about edibility and thus promotes feelings of safety in the food domain. 137 children were tested on a food versus nonfood categorization task contrasting whole and sliced stimuli. In both experiments, increased levels of food neophobia were significantly associated with poorer categorization sensitivity and with a more conservative decision criterion (i.e., favoring “it is inedible” errors). Additionally, results from Experiment 2 revealed that food processing did not influence neophobic children, whereas their neophilic counterparts adopted a more liberal decision criterion for sliced stimuli than for whole stimuli. These findings are the first demonstration of a relationship between a decision criterion and food neophobia in young children. These results have strong implications for theories of food neophobia and laid the groundwork for designing novel types of food education interventions.
Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is a heterogeneous disorder wherein restrictive eating is primarily attributed to non‐shape/weight‐based reasons (e.g., sensory sensitivity) that empirical research continues to explore. Mounting evidence suggests that ARFID often presents alongside neurodevelopmental diagnoses (NDs) or divergent neurodevelopment broadly. Executive functioning (EF) differences often characterize divergent neurodevelopmental trajectories. Additionally, restrictive eating in anorexia nervosa has been conceptualized as related to EF factors (e.g., set shifting). Given the neurodevelopmental phenotype that may be associated with ARFID and the role of EF in anorexia nervosa, this paper proposes EF as a potentially important, yet understudied factor in ARFID pathology. We posit that various observed ARFID behavioral/cognitive tendencies can be conceptualized in relation to EF differences. We contextualize commonly observed ARFID presentations within “core” EF components (i.e., cognitive flexibility, working memory, inhibitory control), leading to hypotheses about EF in ARFID. Finally, we offer additional considerations/directions for future research on EF in ARFID. Increased research on EF in ARFID is needed to consider this potential common factor in the etiology and maintenance of this heterogeneous disorder. We aim to promote further consideration of EF in ARFID etiology, maintenance, and treatment‐outcome research.Public SignificanceThis article proposes that aspects of executive functioning (EF) may play a role in the onset and maintenance of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), although this notion is largely untested by existing research. Further research on the role of EF in ARFID may assist with refining models and treatments for this heterogeneous disorder.
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.