Targeting implicit approach reactions to snack food in children: Effects on intake.

Abstract

Targeting implicit reactions to high-energy snacks proved effective in decreasing intake of snacks in children. Furthermore, the previously reported stimulating effect of food promoting advergames on intake may disappear when a short cognitive task is presented directly after the game. Future work should evaluate the clinical implications of these findings. (PsycINFO Database Record

What Is Trained During Food Go/No-Go Training? A Review Focusing on Mechanisms and a Research Agenda

“…However, another study employed go/no-go training using jelly candy as no-go items and cute animals as go items. This study observed decreased intake of the trained food (jelly candy) and an untrained food (M&Ms) to the same degree [21]. Similarly, a recent study showed that food no-go (relative to go) training reduced intake of both trained and untrained unhealthy foods in a buffet taste test [22].…”

“…There are also stop-signal variants of this training procedure, but these variants are, as we will briefly discuss afterward, crucially different on a number of features (e.g., [18–20]). The control condition consists of a go/no-go training with non-food images (e.g., [21]) or a (go/no-go) task in which they respond to food images (e.g., [11]).…”

“…One experiment showed that go/no-go training compared to a non-food go/no-go training reduced snack intake among children (aged 7–10 years old [21]). Two studies examining the effect of the training on food choice rather than intake found that it reduced choices for no-go food items compared to go food items for participants who were relatively hungry [14, 23] (but see [24]).…”

“…Although it is difficult to compare these studies directly, these findings suggest generalization to untrained food items depends on the nature of the go items. When similar food items appear on go and no-go trials, generalization may be low because the food-response associations can only be learned on the item level, whereas if only foods [21] or a distinct subcategory (e.g., ‘unhealthy’ foods [22]) are no-go items, generalization may be more likely because people may learn that these foods in general are no-go items. Studies are needed to test generalization effects systematically.…”

Memorizing fruit: The effect of a fruit memory-game on children's fruit intake

“…In fact, warning children about the dire effects on their future health prospects of not eating healthy food, or just explaining them that a food is “healthy”, may well even reduce their acceptance of such food (Wardle et al, 2003). Novel methods to facilitate behavioral changes are needed, that do not relay on conscious intentions, but focus more on automatic processes (Papies, 2016, Folkvord et al, 2016c, Hollands et al, 2016). The memory-game that was used in this study can be seen as an example of such a novel method.…”