Improving the touchscreen-based food approach-avoidance task: remediated block-order effects and initial findings regarding validity

Abstract

Approach biases to foods may explain why food consumption often diverges from deliberate dietary intentions. Yet, the assessment of behavioural biases with the approach-avoidance tasks (AAT) is often unreliable and validity is partially unclear. The present study continues a series of studies that develop a task based on naturalistic approach and avoidance movements on a touchscreen (hand-AAT). In the hand-AAT, participants are instructed to respond based on the food/non-food distinction, thereby ensuring attention to the stimuli. Yet, this implies the use of instruction switches (i.e., ‘approach food – avoid objects’ to ‘avoid food – approach objects’), which introduce order effects. The present study increased the number of instruction switches to potentially minimize order effects, and re-examined reliability. We additionally included the implicit association task (IAT) and several self-reported eating behaviours to investigate the task’s validity. Results replicated the presence of reliable approach biases to foods irrespective of instruction order. Evidence for validity, however, was mixed: biases correlated positively with external eating, increase in food craving and aggregated image valence ratings but not with desire to eat ratings of the individual images considered within participants or the IAT. We conclude that the hand-AAT can reliably assess approach biases to foods that are relevant to self-reported eating patterns.

Dual-feature AAT: Combining relevant- and irrelevant-feature approach-avoidance tasks

“…On the other hand, when block order is counterbalanced, it can generate spurious interpersonal differences in approach-avoidance bias, suppressing correlational effects and creating spuriously high reliability. In fact, some studies suggest that participants respond faster due to training effects in the second block (Galler et al, 2022;Kahveci et al, 2021;Wittekind et al, 2021), while no order effects were found in other studies (Krieglmeyer & Deutsch, 2010;Rougier et al, 2018;van Alebeek et al, 2021).…”

Food has the right of way: Evidence for prioritised processing of visual food stimuli irrespective of eating style

“…Finally, a strong approach bias in combination with low inhibitory control resulted in elevated snack consumption (Kakoschke et al, 2015). The probably more reliable feature-relevant food AAT revealed positive associations of a food-approach bias with food craving, external eating, food liking, and desire to eat (Kahveci et al, 2020;van Alebeek et al, 2021).…”

“…In the AAT, participants respond with pull-(approach) or push-(avoidance) movements (e.g., via computer mouse, joystick, or touchscreen) to stimuli from different categories (e.g., food and non-food; see, e.g., van Alebeek et al, 2021). Shorter reaction times of approach than of avoidance responses to stimuli of the category of interest (and this to a larger extent than to the stimuli of another category) are interpreted as an approach bias.…”

“…Nevertheless, the majority of food AAT studies relied on the irrelevant-feature AAT. This might be due to the fact that automatically elicited motivational tendencies in an incidental confrontation with food stimuli were of interest in most investigations (van Alebeek et al, 2021).…”

“…Taken together, AAT investigations of approach biases towards food cues yielded rather mixed results. Most likely, this can (at least partly) be explained by methodological variations between studies in terms of response devices (keyboard, mouse, joystick, touchscreen), simulation of approach and avoidance movements (zoom or distance effects versus actual movements), and differences between task instructions in terms of relevant-feature versus irrelevant-feature AATs (see Kahveci et al, 2021;van Alebeek et al, 2021). In the context of 'wanting', one would assume an overall approach bias for palatable, HC food.…”