Toward a better understanding of durable behavior change by food Go/NoGo training

Chen, Zhang; Veling, Harm

doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101212

“…Some studies showed that training effects were strengthened when training was combined with an awareness-enhancing experimental manipulation (Luo et al, 2019; study 2 of Vandenbosch & De Houwer, 2011), while other studies found that such manipulations did not strengthen results (Van Dessel et al, 2016;studies 3, 4a, and 4b of Vandenbosch & De Houwer, 2011), but instead, spontaneously emerging contingency awareness did (Van Dessel et al, 2016). It is also known that explicit contingency memory is a pre-requisite for direct induction and long-term maintenance of training outcomes in the Go-NoGo task (Chen et al, 2021;Chen & Veling, 2022), evaluative conditioning (Gast et al, 2012;Zerhouni et al, 2019), and classical conditioning (Lovibond & Shanks, 2002). As far as we could see, our study is the first to explore the effect of perceived contingency in a sham AAT training without an actual contingency.…”

Section: Perceived Stimulus-response Contingency As a Moderator Of Tr...mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Another hypothesis, from the Go-NoGo task literature, suggests that a shared memory retrieval process underlies the recall of contingencies and the evaluation of foods. Specifically, participants may recall avoiding the food during the AAT when they explore past memories of interacting with the food to evaluate whether they like it or want to consume it, and the avoidance memory may contribute to said evaluation (Chen & Veling, 2022). Lastly, responses to the perceived contingency question may have been contaminated by prior food preference, thus creating a non-causal relationship with post-training food choice and ratings, which were the variables most consistently related to perceived contingency in this study.…”

Section: Perceived Stimulus-response Contingency As a Moderator Of Tr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dual-Feature Approach-Avoidance Task: Validity, Training Efficacy, and the Role of Contingency Awareness in Changing Food Preference

Kahveci,

van Alebeek,

Blechert

2023

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The approach-avoidance task (AAT) has been used to help individuals avoid unhealthy foods, but results are mixed and often underwhelming. The current study explores the psychometric properties and approach-avoidance bias modifying capability of the dual-feature AAT, a novel AAT variant developed to modify approach-avoidance biases while concealing stimulus-response contingencies and requiring participants to evaluate the stimulus type. In this study, this task entailed approaching foods and avoiding objects if they were surrounded by a particular shape, while doing the opposite if they were surrounded by another shape. We contrasted it with an irrelevant-feature AAT, which involved approaching or avoiding on the basis of the shape around the stimulus, regardless of its content. In an online experiment, we used both to train participants to avoid chocolate and approach fruit. We compared training outcomes to those of equivalent sham trainings and to each other. The irrelevant-feature training was associated with more desire to eat and selection of fruit, affecting both trained and untrained stimuli; meanwhile, the dual-feature AAT only increased approach biases for trained fruit stimuli. Participants’ self-reported stimulus-response contingencies also affected desire-to-eat ratings, food selection, and bias change in both training types, principally in the active training condition. The dual-feature AAT had much higher error rates, RTs, and self-reported difficulty. The effect of perceived contingency likely reflects selective recall of specific stimulus-response associations in the task, and should be studied as a means through which to enhance the effectiveness of future AAT-based trainings. The underwhelming training outcomes of the dual-feature AAT can likely be attributed to its difficulty, as this precluded the acquisition of simple stimulus-response associations; this difficulty must be reduced before the paradigm can become effective.

show abstract

“…A better understanding of the evaluative origins of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions can help researchers and practitioners optimize the training procedures, and potentially develop novel interventions that combine the strengths of both tasks. Such improvements may also help make training-induced behavior changes more long-lasting, which is a key challenge for the research field (Chen & Veling, 2022).…”

Section: The Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on stimulus evaluation

Chen,

Van Dessel

2024

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executing go/no-go or approach/avoidance responses toward a stimulus can change its evaluation. To explain these effects, some theoretical accounts propose that executing these responses inherently triggers affective reactions (i.e., action execution), while others posit that the evaluative influences originate from interpreting these responses as valenced actions (i.e., action interpretation). To test the role of action execution and action interpretation in these evaluative effects, we developed a novel training task that combined both go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions orthogonally. Participants either responded or did not respond (i.e., go/no-go) to control a shopping cart on screen, and as a result, either collected or did not collect (i.e., approach/avoidance) certain food items. When the task instructions referred to the go/no-go actions (Experiment 1, N = 148), we observed an effect of these actions. Participants evaluated no-go items less positively than both go and untrained items. No effect of approach/avoidance actions was observed. Contrarily, when the task instructions referred to the approach/avoidance actions (Experiment 2, N = 158), we observed an approach/avoidance effect. Participants evaluated approached items more positively and avoided items less positively than untrained items. No effect of go/no-go actions was observed. This suggests that action interpretation determined whether go/no-go or approach/avoidance actions influenced stimulus evaluation, when the same motor responses were made. Further examination of the role of action interpretation can inform theories of how actions influence stimulus evaluation, and facilitate the use of these interventions in applied settings.

show abstract

“…A better understanding of the evaluative origins of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions can help researchers and practitioners optimize the training procedures, and potentially develop novel interventions that combine the strengths of both tasks. Such improvements may also help make training-induced behavior changes more long-lasting, which is a key challenge for the research field (Chen & Veling, 2022 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation

Chen,

Van Dessel

2024

Open Mind

Self Cite

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executing go/no-go or approach/avoidance responses toward a stimulus can change its evaluation. To explain these effects, some theoretical accounts propose that executing these responses inherently triggers affective reactions (i.e., action execution), while others posit that the evaluative influences originate from interpreting these responses as valenced actions (i.e., action interpretation). To test the role of action execution and action interpretation in these evaluative effects, we developed a novel training task that combined both go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions orthogonally. Participants either responded or did not respond (i.e., go/no-go) to control a shopping cart on screen, and as a result, either collected or did not collect (i.e., approach/avoidance) certain food items. When the task instructions referred to the go/no-go actions (Experiment 1, N = 148), we observed an effect of these actions. Participants evaluated no-go items less positively than both go and untrained items. No effect of approach/avoidance actions was observed. Contrarily, when the task instructions referred to the approach/avoidance actions (Experiment 2, N = 158), we observed an approach/avoidance effect. Participants evaluated approached items more positively and avoided items less positively than untrained items. No effect of go/no-go actions was observed. This suggests that action interpretation determined whether go/no-go or approach/avoidance actions influenced stimulus evaluation, when the same motor responses were made. Further examination of the role of action interpretation can inform theories of how actions influence stimulus evaluation, and facilitate the use of these interventions in applied settings.

show abstract

Toward a better understanding of durable behavior change by food Go/NoGo training

Cited by 7 publications

References 57 publications

The Dual-Feature Approach-Avoidance Task: Validity, Training Efficacy, and the Role of Contingency Awareness in Changing Food Preference

The Dual-Feature Approach-Avoidance Task: Validity, Training Efficacy, and the Role of Contingency Awareness in Changing Food Preference

Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on stimulus evaluation

Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About