Search

Living in an 'obesogenic' environment poses a serious challenge for weight maintenance. However, many people are able to maintain a healthy weight indicating that not everybody is equally susceptible to the temptations of this food environment. The way in which someone perceives and reacts to food cues, that is, cognitive processes, could underlie differences in susceptibility. An attention bias for food could be such a cognitive factor that contributes to overeating. However, an attention bias for food has also been implicated with restrained eating and eating-disorder symptomatology. The primary aim of the present review was to determine whether an attention bias for food is specifically related to obesity while also reviewing evidence for attention biases in eating-disorder patients, restrained eaters and healthy-weight individuals. Another aim was to systematically examine how selective attention for food relates (causally) to eating behaviour. Current empirical evidence on attention bias for food within obese samples, eating-disorder patients, and, even though to a lesser extent, in restrained eaters is contradictory. However, present experimental studies provide relatively consistent evidence that an attention bias for food contributes to subsequent food intake. This review highlights the need to distinguish not only between different (temporal) attention bias components, but also to take different motivations (craving v. worry) and their impact on attentional processing into account. Overall, the current state of research suggests that biased attention could be one important cognitive mechanism by which the food environment tempts us into overeating.

Objectives: The purpose of this article is to critically evaluate the following claims derived from contemporary theoretical models of attentional bias (AB) for food-and drug-related stimuli: (a) AB is a characteristic feature of obesity and addiction, (b) AB predicts future behavior, (c) AB exerts a causal influence on consummatory behavior, and (d) AB reflects appetitive motivational processes. Method: A focused discussion of the relevant literature is presented. Results: The available evidence reveals inconsistencies with the aforementioned claims. Specifically, AB is not consistently associated with individual differences in body weight or drug use, AB does not consistently predict or influence distal consummatory behavior, and AB may be influenced by both appetitive and aversive motivational processes. These insights are synthesized into a theoretical account that claims that AB for food-and drug-related stimuli arises from momentary changes in evaluations of those stimuli that can be either positive (when the incentive value of the food or drug is high), negative (when individuals have a goal to change their behavior, and those stimuli are perceived as aversive), or both (when individuals experience motivational conflict, or ambivalence). Conclusions: The proposed theoretical synthesis may account for the contributions of appetitive and aversive motivational processes involved in self-regulatory conflicts to AB, and it yields testable predictions about the conditions under which AB should predict and have a causal influence on future consummatory behavior. This has implications for the prediction and modification of unhealthy behaviors and associated disorders.