Search

Evidence for attention bias (AB) for food in restrained eaters is inconsistent. A person’s mindset related to food – that is, whether someone focuses on the hedonic or health aspects of food – might be an overlooked influence on AB for food, possibly explaining the inconsistency in the literature. Fluctuations between a hedonic versus a health mindset might be strongest in restrained eaters, who have a conflicted relationship with food. We investigated the effect of mindset and dietary restraint on AB for food and food intake. We hypothesized that AB for food, as reflected in eye-movement measures and manual response latencies, as well as food intake, would be larger in the hedonic than in the health mindset, most strongly in participants scoring high on dietary restraint. Moreover, we expected a positive correlation between AB for food and food intake, especially in the hedonic mindset. We used short video clips to induce either a health or hedonic mindset. Subsequently, participants ('n' = 122) performed a modified additional singleton task with pictures of high-caloric food vs neutral pictures as irrelevant distractors. Next, food intake was measured in a bogus taste test. We found no evidence for an AB towards food, nor any moderation by either mindset or dietary restraint. Food intake tended to be higher for participants scoring higher on dietary restraint, but effects were not moderated by mindset. Response-latency based AB for food tended to correlate positively with food intake in the hedonic mindset. Taken together, our hypotheses regarding AB for food were largely not confirmed. We provide suggestions on how to improve upon the specific implementations of our AB task and mindset manipulation, to strengthen future research in this field.

Evidence for attention bias (AB) for food in restrained eaters is inconsistent. A person's mindset related to food -- that is, whether someone focuses on the hedonic or health aspects of food -- might be an overlooked influence on AB for food, possibly explaining the inconsistency in the literature. Fluctuations between a hedonic versus a health mindset might be strongest in restrained eaters, who have a conflicted relationship with food. We investigated the effect of mindset and dietary restraint on AB for food and food intake. We hypothesized that AB for food, as reflected in eye-movement measures and manual response latencies, as well as food intake, would be larger in the hedonic than in the health mindset, most strongly in participants scoring high on dietary restraint. Moreover, we expected a positive correlation between AB for food and food intake, especially in the hedonic mindset. We used short video clips to induce either a health or hedonic mindset. Subsequently, participants (n = 122) performed a modified additional singleton task with pictures of high-caloric food vs neutral pictures as irrelevant distractors. Next, food intake was measured in a bogus taste test. We found no evidence for an AB towards food, nor any moderation by either mindset or dietary restraint. Food intake tended to be higher for participants scoring higher on dietary restraint, but effects were not moderated by mindset. Response-latency based AB for food tended to correlate positively with food intake in the hedonic mindset. Taken together, our hypotheses regarding AB for food were largely not confirmed. We provide suggestions on how to improve upon the specific implementations of our AB task and mindset manipulation, to strengthen future research in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Obesity is a worldwide pandemic and theories propose that attentional bias (AB) for food triggers craving and overeating, especially for people with obesity. However, empirical evidence is inconsistent, which may be due to methodological diversity and the double-sided nature of high-caloric palatable foods. That is, these foods simultaneously have a high hedonic and a low health value. So, depending on context and/or emotional state, people's mindset while viewing foods may alternate between hedonic (taste) and health (calories) values, possibly affecting AB for food in opposite directions. This study tests how mindset and BMI (Body Mass Index) influences AB and food intake. We expect greater AB for food and more food intake in the hedonic compared to the health mindset, especially for people with obesity. Mindsets were induced using short video-clips in two sessions in counterbalanced order. Participants (35 with a healthy-weight-category BMI, 31 with obesity) performed a modified Additional Singleton paradigm where they searched for a neutral target among neutral fillers. On 90% of the trials, either a food or a neutral distractor appeared. Response latencies to the target and eye-movements to the distractor were recorded. Dependent variables included: response latencies, and eye-movement variables on the distractor: fixations (%), 1st fixation duration, dwell-time. Food intake was assessed in a bogus taste test. No significant effects emerged from the eye-movements analysis, whereas the analysis of response latencies showed an AB for food, not significantly moderated by BMI or mindset. Food intake was affected by mindset partly as expected, as participants ate more in the hedonic than in the health mindset when the hedonic mindset was induced in the second session. One AB measure (fixations) correlated positively with food intake. Finally, food captured attention -- but not the eyes -- and mindset affects food intake partly as expected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Obesity is a worldwide pandemic and theories propose that attentional bias (AB) for food triggers craving and overeating, especially for people with obesity. However, empirical evidence is inconsistent, which may be due to methodological diversity and the double-sided nature of high-caloric palatable foods. That is, these foods simultaneously have a high hedonic and a low health value. So, depending on context and/or emotional state, people’s 'mindset' while viewing foods may alternate between hedonic (taste) and health (calories) values, possibly affecting AB for food in opposite directions. This study tests how mindset and BMI (Body Mass Index) influences AB and food intake. We expect greater AB for food and more food intake in the hedonic compared to the health mindset, especially for people with obesity. Mindsets were induced using short video-clips in two sessions in counterbalanced order. Participants (35 with a healthy-weight-category BMI, 31 with obesity) performed a modified 'Additional Singleton' paradigm where they searched for a neutral target among neutral fillers. On 90% of the trials, either a food or a neutral distractor appeared. Response latencies to the target and eye-movements to the distractor were recorded. Dependent variables included: response latencies, and eye-movement variables on the distractor: fixations (%), 1st fixation duration, dwell-time. Food intake was assessed in a bogus taste test. No significant effects emerged from the eye-movements analysis, whereas the analysis of response latencies showed an AB for food, not significantly moderated by BMI or mindset. Food intake was affected by mindset partly as expected, as participants ate more in the hedonic than in the health mindset when the hedonic mindset was induced in the second session. One AB measure (fixations) correlated positively with food intake. Finally, food captured attention – but not the eyes – and mindset affects food intake partly as expected.

Objective: Despite widespread use of emotional eating self-report measures, the validity of these measures has been questioned. Most of this research has focused on the validity of the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) as opposed to the Emotional Eating Scale (EES). The current paper describes two experimental studies that examined associations between self-reported emotional eating and emotional eating measured in the laboratory. To address previous design limitations, the current studies used highly palatable foods, effective mood induction methods, and the EES, in addition to the DEBQ. Design: In two samples of college students, participants were randomised to a neutral or negative mood induction. Main Outcome Measures: The traditional DEBQ and the original and revised versions of the EES were used to measure self-reported emotional eating. Emotional eating was assessed in the laboratory using a bogus taste test. Subjects were asked to taste various foods, and food intake was measured. Results: In both samples, self-reported emotional eating using the DEBQ and EES was unrelated to laboratory measured emotional eating (i.e. food consumed during the bogus taste test). Conclusion: Future research in this area would benefit from using diverse samples and development of novel methods of assessing emotional eating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restrained eaters and overweight and obese people are prone to increase their food intake during stressful situations. This study examines the impact of a stressful couple discussion on food intake in both spouses, while simultaneously taking into account the effect of BMI and restraint on this association. For 15min, 80 heterosexual couples discussed an aspect that they wanted their partner to change followed by an individual bogus taste test for the purpose of measuring his or her stress-induced food intake. Prior to and after the discussion, subjective mood state was assessed, as well as appetite perceptions, and the mood change before and after the discussion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses with a three-way interaction between mood change, BMI, and restraint were used to predict food intake for both men and women, while controlling for appetite perceptions. Only restrained women with a high BMI ate more when their mood worsened. For men, only appetite perceptions significantly predicted food intake. These results suggest that an induced negative mood in the form of a stressful couple discussion impacts food intake differently for men and women, and that particular attention should be given to the concomitant effect of both restraint and BMI when studying stress-induced eating among women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: In rodents, antagonism of receptors for corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) blocks stress-induced reinstatement of drug or palatable food seeking. Objective: To test anticraving properties of the CRF antagonist pexacerfont in humans. Methods: We studied stress-induced eating in people scoring high on dietary restraint (food preoccupation and chronic unsuccessful dieting) with body-mass index (BMI) >22. In a double-blind, between-groups trial, 31 'restrained' eaters were stabilized on either pexacerfont (300 mg/day for 7 days, then 100 mg/day for 21 days) or placebo. On day 15, they underwent a math-test stressor; during three subsequent visits, they heard personalized craving-induction scripts. In each session, stress-induced food consumption and craving were assessed in a bogus taste test and on visual analog scales. We used digital video to monitor daily ingestion of study capsules and nightly rating of food problems/preoccupation on the Yale Food Addiction Scale (YFAS). Results: The study was stopped early due to an administrative interpretation of US federal law, unrelated to safety or outcome. The bogus taste tests suggested some protective effect of pexacerfont against eating after a laboratory stressor ( r = 0.30, 95 % CL = −0.12, 0.63, Bayes factor 11.30). Similarly, nightly YFAS ratings were lower with pexacerfont than placebo ( r = 0.39, CI 0.03, 0.66), but this effect should be interpreted with caution because it was present from the first night of pill ingestion, despite pexacerfont's slow pharmacokinetics. Conclusions: The findings may support further investigation of the anticraving properties of CRF antagonists, especially for food. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]