Abstract
Inhibitory control training effects on behaviour (e.g. 'healthier' food choices) can be driven by changes in affective evaluations of trained stimuli, and theoretical models indicate that changes in action tendencies may be a complementary mechanism. In this preregistered study, we investigated the effects of food-specific go/no-go training on action tendencies, liking and impulsive choices in healthy participants. In the training task, energy-dense foods were assigned to one of three conditions: 100% inhibition (no-go), 0% inhibition (go) or 50% inhibition (control). Automatic action tendencies and liking were measured pre- and post-training for each condition. We found that training did not lead to changes in approach bias towards trained foods (go and no-go relative to control), but we warrant caution in interpreting this finding as there are important limitations to consider for the employed approach-avoidance task. There was only anecdotal evidence for an effect on food liking, but there was evidence for contingency learning during training, and participants were on average less likely to choose a no-go food compared to a control food after training. We discuss these findings from both a methodological and theoretical standpoint and propose that the mechanisms of action behind training effects be investigated further.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 210666 |
Journal | Royal Society Open Science |
Volume | 8 |
Issue number | 8 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 25 Aug 2021 |
Bibliographical note
© 2021 The Authors.Funding
Ethics. This project was led by researchers at Cardiff University and received ethical approval by the Ethics Committee at the School of Psychology (EC.17.10.10.4995GR). For student participation, the study was further approved by the Ethics Committees at the University of Bath (17-254GR) and the University of Exeter (eCLESPsy000276). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Data accessibility. All study data and analysis scripts are freely available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ hz2nb/). The study protocol was preregistered prior to data collection at https://osf.io/wav8p. The data are provided in electronic supplementary material [86]. Authors’ contributions. L.T. and R.C.A. designed the research, analysed and interpreted the data and drafted and finalized the manuscript. E.A.H., N.M.H., K.H., N.B., E.M., A.-J.B. and F.C.M. made substantial contributions to the study design, acquisition and interpretation of data and gave final approval of the manuscript. N.S.L., K.S.B. and C.D.C. made substantial contributions to the design of the research, analysis and interpretation of the data, manuscript drafts and final approval of the manuscript. All the authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Competing interests. C.D.C. is a member of the Royal Society Open Science editorial board but had no involvement in the peer review process of this submission. The authors declare no other competing interests. Funding. The development of this manuscript and related materials by the corresponding author was in part supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded to L.T.—ES/V011030/1). This research was further supported by grants held by C.D.C. from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/K008277/1) and the European Research Council (Consolidator grant 647893 CCT). Acknowledgements. This research project was conducted as part of the GW4 Undergraduate Psychology Consortium 2017/2018. We gratefully acknowledge Teaching Development Funding, from the faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Bath for funding travel and room hire costs for the consortium meetings.