J Overduin1, A Jansen, E Louwerse. 1. Department of Experimental Abnormal Psychology, Limburg Univesity, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Stroop task is aimed at assessing attentional bias. Words are displayed one by one on a computer screen and subjects are instructed to name the color in which every word is printed. The attentional bias is supposed to be reflected in the extent to which the word meanings interfere with the speed of color naming: The longer the color naming latency, the larger the attentional bias. Experiments using this task have demonstrated attentional bias for eating and body shape-related words in bulimic, anorexic, and restrained subjects. Explanations of these results have generally been formulated in terms of restricted food intake or emotional concerns about food and body shape-related themes. In contrast, in the present article it was proposed that Stroop interference might reflect a tendency either to withdraw or approach food or body shape-related stimuli. METHOD: Fifty-one subjects (25 unrestrained, 26 restrained) were administered a Stroop task containing neutral, food, and body shape-related words. There were two conditions to which subjects were randomly allocated: the "appetizer" and "no-appetizer" condition. The appetizer was a bit of pudding to be ingested by the subject just before the Stroop task. Following the Stroop task an ice cream taste test was presented in which the subjects were allowed to eat as much as they liked. The amount of ice cream eaten was registered secretly. RESULTS: The results show that in unrestrained subjects Stroop interference for food words was found only in the appetizer condition. Restrained subjects, however, showed a permanent interference for food words. A significant correlation of .58 between Stroop food-word interference and ice cream intake was found only in unrestrained subjects. In restrained eaters the correlation was near 0. No effect of condition or restraint was found on Stroop body shape-word interference. DISCUSSION: The findings indicate that (1) ingestion of an appetizer seems to have evoked an attentional bias for food words in nonrestraints that correlated with food intake; (2) restrained eaters showed continuous attentional bias. This appears to support the urge-to-act explanation of Stroop interference. The lack of correlation between restraints' attentional bias and ad lib food intake could have been caused by inhibition of approach which is one of the characteristics of restrained eating: The present procedure seems not to have triggered disinhibited eating in these subjects. Among other things it is concluded that Stroop interference, as a measure of "craving" triggered by food cue, might be a useful aid in assessing the risk of relapse in treated binge eating patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The Stroop task is aimed at assessing attentional bias. Words are displayed one by one on a computer screen and subjects are instructed to name the color in which every word is printed. The attentional bias is supposed to be reflected in the extent to which the word meanings interfere with the speed of color naming: The longer the color naming latency, the larger the attentional bias. Experiments using this task have demonstrated attentional bias for eating and body shape-related words in bulimic, anorexic, and restrained subjects. Explanations of these results have generally been formulated in terms of restricted food intake or emotional concerns about food and body shape-related themes. In contrast, in the present article it was proposed that Stroop interference might reflect a tendency either to withdraw or approach food or body shape-related stimuli. METHOD: Fifty-one subjects (25 unrestrained, 26 restrained) were administered a Stroop task containing neutral, food, and body shape-related words. There were two conditions to which subjects were randomly allocated: the "appetizer" and "no-appetizer" condition. The appetizer was a bit of pudding to be ingested by the subject just before the Stroop task. Following the Stroop task an ice cream taste test was presented in which the subjects were allowed to eat as much as they liked. The amount of ice cream eaten was registered secretly. RESULTS: The results show that in unrestrained subjects Stroop interference for food words was found only in the appetizer condition. Restrained subjects, however, showed a permanent interference for food words. A significant correlation of .58 between Stroop food-word interference and ice cream intake was found only in unrestrained subjects. In restrained eaters the correlation was near 0. No effect of condition or restraint was found on Stroop body shape-word interference. DISCUSSION: The findings indicate that (1) ingestion of an appetizer seems to have evoked an attentional bias for food words in nonrestraints that correlated with food intake; (2) restrained eaters showed continuous attentional bias. This appears to support the urge-to-act explanation of Stroop interference. The lack of correlation between restraints' attentional bias and ad lib food intake could have been caused by inhibition of approach which is one of the characteristics of restrained eating: The present procedure seems not to have triggered disinhibited eating in these subjects. Among other things it is concluded that Stroop interference, as a measure of "craving" triggered by food cue, might be a useful aid in assessing the risk of relapse in treated binge eating patients.
Authors: Nadeeka R Dias; Joy M Schmitz; Nuvan Rathnayaka; Stuart D Red; Anne B Sereno; F Gerard Moeller; Scott D Lane Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Bonnie Spring; Kristin Schneider; H G McFadden; Jocelyn Vaughn; Andrea T Kozak; Malaina Smith; Arlen C Moller; Leonard Epstein; Stephanie W Russell; Andrew DeMott; Donald Hedeker Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Suzanne Phelan; Jason Hassenstab; Jeanne M McCaffery; Lawrence Sweet; Hollie A Raynor; Ronald A Cohen; Rena R Wing Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Tad T Brunyé; Jackie F Hayes; Caroline R Mahoney; Aaron L Gardony; Holly A Taylor; Robin B Kanarek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 3.240