The only constant is change: Stable vs. variable aspects of food approach bias relate differently to food craving and intake

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Appetite Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107726
Hannah van Alebeek, Mareike Röttger, Sercan Kahveci, Jens Blechert, Matthias Burkard Aulbach
{"title":"The only constant is change: Stable vs. variable aspects of food approach bias relate differently to food craving and intake","authors":"Hannah van Alebeek,&nbsp;Mareike Röttger,&nbsp;Sercan Kahveci,&nbsp;Jens Blechert,&nbsp;Matthias Burkard Aulbach","doi":"10.1016/j.appet.2024.107726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The tendency to approach food faster than to avoid it (i.e., approach bias) is thought to facilitate food intake, particularly foods that conflict with one's dietary goals. However, this relationship has been difficult to demonstrate, which ties into an ongoing debate about whether such cognitive-behavioral biases represent stable traits or fluctuating states. We thus investigated the temporal fluctuations of food approach bias (1), its within-participant association with food craving (2) and intake (3), and the role of top-down control in this bias-intake association (4). The 76 participants completed an impulsivity questionnaire and performed a smartphone-based approach-avoidance task on nine days. Every day, they also reported their daily craving, intake, and dietary intentions for 12 personalized foods they wanted to eat less or more often over the study period. Approach bias varied considerably within individuals (1), and correlated in unexpected ways with food craving (2) and intake (3); this association of approach bias with intake was moderated by inter-individual differences (rather than day-to-day fluctuations) in dietary intentions and impulsivity (4). Results emphasize the need to re-conceptualize approach bias as comprising both state and trait components, and indicate that the more trait-like aspects of top-down control gate the relationship of approach bias with intake. The large day-to-day variation in approach bias may explain why single-session bias measures often do not predict distal outcomes like body weight. Furthermore, our results suggest that interventions targeting approach bias may be most effective for certain timepoints (high-risk situations) and individuals (those with weak dietary intentions).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":242,"journal":{"name":"Appetite","volume":"204 ","pages":"Article 107726"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Appetite","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666324005300","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The tendency to approach food faster than to avoid it (i.e., approach bias) is thought to facilitate food intake, particularly foods that conflict with one's dietary goals. However, this relationship has been difficult to demonstrate, which ties into an ongoing debate about whether such cognitive-behavioral biases represent stable traits or fluctuating states. We thus investigated the temporal fluctuations of food approach bias (1), its within-participant association with food craving (2) and intake (3), and the role of top-down control in this bias-intake association (4). The 76 participants completed an impulsivity questionnaire and performed a smartphone-based approach-avoidance task on nine days. Every day, they also reported their daily craving, intake, and dietary intentions for 12 personalized foods they wanted to eat less or more often over the study period. Approach bias varied considerably within individuals (1), and correlated in unexpected ways with food craving (2) and intake (3); this association of approach bias with intake was moderated by inter-individual differences (rather than day-to-day fluctuations) in dietary intentions and impulsivity (4). Results emphasize the need to re-conceptualize approach bias as comprising both state and trait components, and indicate that the more trait-like aspects of top-down control gate the relationship of approach bias with intake. The large day-to-day variation in approach bias may explain why single-session bias measures often do not predict distal outcomes like body weight. Furthermore, our results suggest that interventions targeting approach bias may be most effective for certain timepoints (high-risk situations) and individuals (those with weak dietary intentions).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
唯一不变的是变化:食物接触偏差的稳定与可变方面与食物渴望和摄入量的关系不同。
接近食物比避免食物更快的倾向(即接近偏差)被认为会促进食物摄入,尤其是与个人饮食目标相冲突的食物。然而,这种关系一直难以证明,这也是目前关于这种认知行为偏差是代表稳定特质还是波动状态的争论焦点。因此,我们研究了食物接近偏差的时间波动(1)、偏差与食物渴望(2)和摄入量(3)之间的内部联系,以及自上而下的控制在偏差与摄入量之间的联系中的作用(4)。76 名参与者填写了一份冲动性问卷,并在 9 天内完成了一项基于智能手机的接近-回避任务。在研究期间,他们还每天报告自己对 12 种个性化食物的渴望、摄入量和饮食意向,他们希望在研究期间少吃或多吃这些食物。接近偏差在个体内部存在很大差异(1),并以意想不到的方式与食物渴望(2)和摄入量(3)相关联;接近偏差与摄入量的这种关联被饮食意向和冲动性的个体间差异(而非每日波动)所调节(4)。研究结果表明,有必要重新认识接近偏差,将其视为由状态和特质两部分组成,并表明自上而下控制中更类似于特质的方面控制着接近偏差与摄入量之间的关系。接近偏差每天都有很大的变化,这也许可以解释为什么单次偏差测量往往不能预测体重等远期结果。此外,我们的研究结果表明,针对接近偏差的干预措施可能对某些时间点(高风险情况)和个体(饮食意愿不强的个体)最为有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Appetite
Appetite 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
566
审稿时长
13.4 weeks
期刊介绍: Appetite is an international research journal specializing in cultural, social, psychological, sensory and physiological influences on the selection and intake of foods and drinks. It covers normal and disordered eating and drinking and welcomes studies of both human and non-human animal behaviour toward food. Appetite publishes research reports, reviews and commentaries. Thematic special issues appear regularly. From time to time the journal carries abstracts from professional meetings. Submissions to Appetite are expected to be based primarily on observations directly related to the selection and intake of foods and drinks; papers that are primarily focused on topics such as nutrition or obesity will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution to the understanding of appetite in line with the journal's aims and scope.
期刊最新文献
Does Rejection of Inequality Encourage Green Consumption? The Effect of Power Distance Belief on Organic Food Consumption. "Flavor, fun, and vitamins"? Consumers' Lay Beliefs About Child-Oriented Food Products. Association of Maternal Immigration Status with Emotional Eating in Taiwanese Children: The Mediating Roles of Health Literacy and Feeding Practices. Weight Discrimination as a Predictor of Stress and Eating: The Role of Identifying as "Fat". Food rejection is associated with tactile sensitivity and tactile appreciation in three-year-old children.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1