Improving the touchscreen-based food approach-avoidance task: remediated block-order effects and initial findings regarding validity
- 1. Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Paris-Lodron-University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
Description
Approach biases to foods may explain why food consumption often diverges from deliberate dietary intentions. When cognitive resources are depleted, implicit responses may contribute to overeating and overweight. Yet, the assessment of behavioural biases with the approach-avoidance tasks (AAT) is often unreliable. We previously addressed methodological limitations of the AAT by employing naturalistic approach and avoidance movements on a touchscreen (hand-AAT) and instructing participants to respond based on the food/non-food distinction. In the consistent block, participants were instructed to approach food and avoid objects while in the inconsistent block, participants were instructed to avoid foods and approach objects. Biases were highly reliable but affected by the order in which participants received the two task blocks. In the current study, we aimed to resolve the block order effects by increasing the number of blocks from two to six and validate the hand-AAT with the implicit association task (IAT) and self-reported eating behaviours. We replicated the presence of reliable approach biases to foods and further showed that these were not affected by block order. Evidence for validity was mixed: biases correlated positively with external eating, food craving and aggregated image valence ratings but not with within-participants differences in desire to eat ratings of the images or the IAT. We conclude that hand-AAT can reliably assess approach biases to foods that are relevant to self-reported eating patterns and were not probably confounded by block-order effects.
Files
openreseurope-1-14311.pdf
Files
(1.0 MB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:ea693e535e557f5d021c34124d76eee9
|
1.0 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Baker DH, Vilidaite G, Lygo FA (2020). Power contours: Optimising sample size and precision in experimental psychology and human neuroscience. Psychol Methods. doi:10.1037/met0000337
- Becker D, Jostmann NB, Wiers RW (2015). Approach avoidance training in the eating domain: Testing the effectiveness across three single session studies. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.11.017
- Blechert J, Lender A, Polk S (2019). Food-Pics_Extended - An Image Database for Experimental Research on Eating and Appetite: Additional Images, Normative Ratings and an Updated Review. Front Psychol. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00307
- Booth C, Spronk D, Grol M (2018). Uncontrolled eating in adolescents: The role of impulsivity and automatic approach bias for food. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.024
- Brockmeyer T, Hahn C, Reetz C (2015). Approach bias and cue reactivity towards food in people with high versus low levels of food craving. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.013
- Foroni F, Pergola G, Argiris G (2013). The FoodCast research image database (FRIDa). Front Hum Neurosci. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00051
- Gawronski B, Deutsch R, Banse R (2011). Response Interference Tasks as Indirect Measures of Automatic Associations. Cognitive methods in social psychology.
- Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
- Kahveci S (2020). AATtools: Reliability and Scoring Routines for the Approach-Avoidance Task.
- Kahveci S, Meule A, Lender A (2020). Food approach bias is moderated by the desire to eat specific foods. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2020.104758
- Kahveci S, van Alebeek H, Berking M (2021). Touchscreen-based assessment of food approach biases: investigating reliability and item-specific preferences. Appetitie. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105190
- Kahveci S, van Alebeek H, Blechert J (2021). Improving the touchscreen-based food approach-avoidance task: remediated block-order effects and initial findings regarding validity.
- Kakoschke N, Kemps E, Tiggemann M (2015). Combined effects of cognitive bias for food cues and poor inhibitory control on unhealthy food intake. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.004
- Kakoschke N, Kemps E, Tiggemann M (2017a). Approach bias modification training and consumption: A review of the literature. Addict Behav. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.08.007
- Kakoschke N, Kemps E, Tiggemann M (2017b). Impulsivity moderates the effect of approach bias modification on healthy food consumption. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.06.019
- Karpinski A, Steinman RB (2006). The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16
- Kemps E, Tiggemann M (2015). Approach bias for food cues in obese individuals. Psychol Health. doi:10.1080/08870446.2014.974605
- Krieglmeyer R, Deutsch R (2010). Comparing measures of approach–avoidance behaviour: The manikin task vs. two versions of the joystick task. Cogn Emot. doi:10.1080/02699930903047298
- Larsen H, Kong G, Becker D (2014). Implicit motivational processes underlying smoking in American and Dutch adolescents. Front Psychiatry. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00051
- Lebel EP, Paunonen SV (2011). Sexy But Often Unreliable: The Impact of Unreliability on the Replicability of Experimental Findings With Implicit Measures. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. doi:10.1177/0146167211400619
- Lender A, Meule A, Rinck M (2018). Measurement of food-related approach-avoidance biases: Larger biases when food stimuli are task relevant. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.01.032
- Maas J, Keijsers GPJ, Rinck M (2017a). Implicit Action Tendencies and Evaluations in Unwanted Snacking Behavior. Int J Cogn Ther. doi:10.1521/ijct.2017.10.1.79
- Maas J, Woud ML, Keijsers GPJ (2017). The Attraction of Sugar: An Association between Body Mass Index and Impaired Avoidance of Sweet Snacks. J Exp Psychopathol. doi:10.5127/jep.052415
- Matheson B (2018). Approach Bias Towards Food Cues: Investigating the Impact of a Food-specific Approach Avoidance Task (AAT-Food) Training on Automatic Action Tendencies and Food Consumption in a Laboratory Paradigm.
- Mcdonald RP (1978). Generalizability in Factorable Domains: "Domain Validity and Generalizability". Educ Psychol Meas. doi:10.1177/001316447803800111
- McNally RJ (2019). Attentional bias for threat: Crisis or opportunity?. Clin Psychol Rev. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2018.05.005
- Mehl N, Mueller-Wieland L, Mathar D (2018). Retraining automatic action tendencies in obesity. Physiol Behav. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.03.031
- Meule A, Hermann T, Kübler A (2014). A short version of the : The FCQ-T-reduced. Front Psychol. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00190
- Meule A, Lender A, Richard A (2019). Approach-avoidance tendencies towards food: Measurement on a touchscreen and the role of attention and food craving. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.002
- Meule A, Lutz A, Vögele C (2012a). Food cravings discriminate differentially between successful and unsuccessful dieters and non-dieters. Validation of the Food Cravings Questionnaires in German. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.010
- Meule A, Papies EK, Kübler A (2012b). Differentiating between successful and unsuccessful dieters. Validity and reliability of the . Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.01.028
- Meule A, Richard A, Lender A (2020). Measuring approach-avoidance tendencies towards food with touchscreen-based arm movements. Psychol Res. doi:10.1007/s00426-019-01195-1
- Neimeijer RAM, Roefs A, Glashouwe KA (2019). Reduced automatic approach tendencies towards task-relevant and task-irrelevant food pictures in Anorexia Nervosa. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2019.101496
- Paslakis G, Kühn S, Grunert S (2017). Explicit and implicit approach vs. avoidance tendencies towards high vs. low calorie food cues in patients with obesity and active binge eating disorder. Nutrients. doi:10.3390/nu9101068
- Paslakis G, Kühn S, Schaubschläger A (2016). Explicit and implicit approach vs. avoidance tendencies towards high vs. low calorie food cues in patients with anorexia nervosa and healthy controls. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.08.001
- Paslakis G, Scholz-Hehn AD, Sommer LM (2020). Implicit bias to food and body cues in eating disorders: a systematic review. Eat Weight Disord. doi:10.1007/s40519-020-00974-9
- Peeters M, Wiers RW, Monshouwer K (2012). Automatic processes in at-risk adolescents: the role of alcohol-approach tendencies and response inhibition in drinking behavior. Addiction. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03948.x
- Phaf RH, Mohr SE, Rotteveel M (2014). Approach, avoidance, and affect: a meta-analysis of approach-avoidance tendencies in manual reaction time tasks. Front Psychol. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00378
- Pieters S, Burk WJ, Van der Vorst H (2014). Impulsive and reflective processes related to alcohol use in young adolescents. Front Psychiatry. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00056
- (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
- Rammstedt B (2004). Zur Bestimmung der Güte von Multi-Item-Skalen: eine Einführung.
- Reichenberger J, Richard A, Smyth JM (2018). It's craving time: Time of day effects on momentary hunger and food craving in daily life. Nutrition. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2018.03.048
- Renner B, Sproesser G, Strohbach S (2012). Why we eat what we eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.004
- Revelle W, Zinbarg RE (2009). Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega, and the glb : Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
- Richard A, Meule A, Blechert J (2019). Implicit evaluation of chocolate and motivational need states interact in predicting chocolate intake in everyday life. Eat Behav. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2019.01.006
- Rinck M, Becker ES (2007). Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.001
- Rougier M, Muller D, Ric F (2018). A new look at sensorimotor aspects in approach/avoidance tendencies: The role of visual whole-body movement information. J Exp Soc Psychol. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.12.004
- Sijtsma K (2009). On the use the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha. Psychometrika. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
- van't Riet J, Sijtsema SJ, Dagevos H (2011). The importance of habits in eating behaviour. An overview and recommendations for future research. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.07.010
- Van Strien T, Frijters JE, Bergers G (1986). The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behavior. Int J Eat Disord. doi:10.1002/1098-108X(198602)5:2<295::AID-EAT2260050209>3.0.CO;2-T
- Warschburger P, Gmeiner M, Morawietz M (2018). Battle of plates: a pilot study of an approach-avoidance training for overweight children and adolescents. Public Health Nutr. doi:10.1017/S1368980017002701
- Watson D, Clark L, Tellegen A (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
- Wiers RW, Rinck M, Kordts R (2010). Retraining automatic action-tendencies to approach alcohol in hazardous drinkers. Addiction. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02775.x
- Wittekind CE, Blechert J, Schiebel T (null). Comparision of different devices to assess behavioral tendencies towards chocolate.
- Woud ML, Maas J, Wiers RW (2016). Assessment of Tobacco-Related Approach and Attentional Biases in Smokers, Cravers, Ex-Smokers, and Non-Smokers. Front Psychol. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00172