When Mere Action Versus Inaction Leads to Robust Preference Change

Abstract

Understanding the formation and modification of preferences is important for explaining human behavior across many domains. Here we examined when and how preferences for food items can be changed by linking mere action versus inaction to these items. In 7 preregistered experiments, participants were trained to consistently respond to certain food items (go items) and not respond to other items (no-go items) in a go/no-go training. Next, to assess preferences, they repeatedly chose between go and no-go items for consumption. Decision time during the choice task was manipulated and measured. Immediately after training, participants chose go items more often for consumption when choosing under time pressure, for both high-value and low-value choice pairs. Preferences were reliably changed in favor of go items for choices between unhealthy foods, between healthy foods, and between healthy and unhealthy foods. Furthermore, preference change was still observed one week after training, although the effect size largely decreased. Interestingly, when participants made choices without time pressure, the effect became weaker and statistically non-significant. These results suggest that preference change induced by mere responding versus not responding is constrained to situations where people take little time to make decisions, and the effect is relatively short-lived. By showing the reliability, generalizability and boundary conditions of the effect, these findings advance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of go/no-go training, provide more insights into how the training can be effectively applied, and raise new theoretical questions on how mere action versus inaction impacts preferences.

Effects of go/no-go training on food-related action tendencies, liking and choice

“…Reduced choices for no-go foods are consistent with previous studies that have used both go/no-go and stop-signal task paradigms [25,[71][72][73]. For example, Chen et al [71] showed that following a single training session, participants were more likely to choose go foods than no-go foods up to one week later.…”

“…Reduced choices for no-go foods are consistent with previous studies that have used both go/no-go and stop-signal task paradigms [25,[71][72][73]. For example, Chen et al [71] showed that following a single training session, participants were more likely to choose go foods than no-go foods up to one week later. Importantly, previous research has indicated that training effects on food choice may be mediated by the devaluation of no-go foods [25], although in this study, there was not conclusive evidence for a no-go devaluation effect as discussed further below (also see review by Veling et al [29]).…”

“…Recent evidence suggests that training effects may only be reliable for speeded, and not for deliberate, food choice [26,71], which indicates that demand characteristics would not affect the results in this study even if a proportion of participants was aware of stimulus-response contingencies after training (i.e. cake was a no-go food so I will not choose it).…”

“…Studies that have found increased food choices for go food items employed a different paradigm, namely cued-approach training [26,62] and cannot directly contrast the finding reported here. From an applied perspective, it should be noted that the training protocol in this study included only energy-dense foods and future studies could pair healthy foods with go responses to test whether (and how) training can promote healthier food choices in the laboratory [26,71].…”

Cognitive and environmental interventions to encourage healthy eating: evidence-based recommendations for public health policy

“…Fourth, food choice. Snack items associated with ‘no-go’ cues were chosen less following training compared to snack items associated with ‘go’ cues [61,62]. Chen et al [61] also showed that the probability of choosing a healthful food (fruit or vegetable) over an unhealthy food (crisps and candy bars) could be increased by associating healthy foods with ‘go’ cues and unhealthy foods with ‘no-go’ cues.…”