Info: Zenodo’s user support line is staffed on regular business days between Dec 23 and Jan 5. Response times may be slightly longer than normal.

Published August 20, 2021 | Version 3
Journal article Open

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. 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.

Files

openreseurope-1-15166.pdf

Files (1.2 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:f24b2adfeeddd6fbf8cd30365e090f99
1.2 MB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • Baker DH, Vilidaite G, Lygo FA (2021). 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
  • Boswell RG, Kober H (2016). Food cue reactivity and craving predict eating and weight gain: a meta-analytic review. Obes Rev. doi:10.1111/obr.12354
  • Brignell C, Griffiths T, Bradley BP (2009). Attentional and approach biases for pictorial food cues. Influence of external eating. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.10.007
  • 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
  • Chen M, Bargh JA (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. doi:10.1177/0146167299025002007
  • Foroni F, Pergola G, Argiris G (2013). The FoodCast research image database (FRIDa). Front Hum Neurosci. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00051
  • 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
  • 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
  • Kauer J, Pelchat ML, Rozin P (2015). Adult picky eating. Phenomenology, taste sensitivity, and psychological correlates. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.03.001
  • Kemps E, Tiggemann M (2015). Approach bias for food cues in obese individuals. Psychol Health. doi:10.1080/08870446.2014.974605
  • Kraus AA, Piqueras-Fiszman B (2016). Sandwich or sweets? An assessment of two novel implicit association tasks to capture dynamic motivational tendencies and stable evaluations towards foods. Food Qual Prefer. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.11.005
  • 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
  • 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
  • Messner C, Vosgerau J (2010). Cognitive Inertia and the Implicit Association Test. J Mark Res. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.2.374
  • 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 Alebeek H, Kahveci S, Blechert J (2021). Improving the touchscreen-based food approach-avoidance task: remediated block-order effects and initial findings regarding validity.
  • 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
  • Veenstra EM, de Jong PJ (2010). Restrained eaters show enhanced automatic approach tendencies towards food. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.03.007
  • 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 CE, Gladwin TE, Ludwig VU (2017). Comparing three cognitive biases for alcohol cues in alcohol dependence. Alcohol Alcohol. doi:10.1093/alcalc/agw063
  • 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 (2021). Comparision of different devices to assess behavioral tendencies towards chocolate. Appetite. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105294
  • 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