Experimental Research Requires Valid and Sensitive Measures of Alcohol Intake, and This is a Step in the Right Direction: Commentary on Leeman and Colleagues (2018)

Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions are strongly advocated in research and clinical practice.

Inhibitory control training (ICT) is a novel intervention in which participants learn to associate appetitive cues with inhibition of behaviour. We present a meta-analytic investigation of laboratory studies of ICT for appetitive behaviour change in which we investigate candidate mechanisms of action, individual differences that may moderate its effectiveness, and compare it to other psychological interventions. We conducted random-effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis on data from 14 articles (18 effect sizes in total). Participants who received ICT chose or consumed significantly less food or alcohol compared to control groups (SMD = 0.36, 95% CIs [0.24, 0.47]; Z = 6.18, p < .001; I(2) = 71%). Effect sizes were larger for motor (Go/No-Go and Stop Signal) compared to oculomotor (Antisaccade) ICT. The effects of ICT on behaviour were comparable to those produced by other psychological interventions, and effects of ICT on food intake were greater in participants who were attempting to restrict their food intake. The magnitude of the effect of ICT on behaviour was predicted by the proportion of successful inhibitions but was unrelated to the absolute number of trials in which appetitive cues were paired with the requirement to inhibit, or the contingency between appetitive cues and the requirement to inhibit. The effect of ICT on cue devaluation (primarily assessed with implicit association tests) was not statistically significant. Our analysis confirms the efficacy of ICT for short-term behaviour change in the laboratory, and we have demonstrated that its effectiveness may depend on pairings between appetitive cues and successful inhibition. We highlight the need for further research to translate these findings outside of the laboratory.

Because overconsumption of food contributes to ill health, understanding what affects how much people eat is of importance. The ‘bogus’ taste test is a measure widely used in eating behaviour research to identify factors that may have a causal effect on food intake. However, there has been no examination of the validity of the bogus taste test as a measure of food intake. We conducted a participant level analysis of 31 published laboratory studies that used the taste test to measure food intake. We assessed whether the taste test was sensitive to experimental manipulations hypothesized to increase or decrease food intake. We examined construct validity by testing whether participant sex, hunger and liking of taste test food were associated with the amount of food consumed in the taste test. In addition, we also examined whether BMI (body mass index), trait measures of dietary restraint and over-eating in response to palatable food cues were associated with food consumption. Results indicated that the taste test was sensitive to experimental manipulations hypothesized to increase or decrease food intake. Factors that were reliably associated with increased consumption during the taste test were being male, have a higher baseline hunger, liking of the taste test food and a greater tendency to overeat in response to palatable food cues, whereas trait dietary restraint and BMI were not. These results indicate that the bogus taste test is likely to be a valid measure of food intake and can be used to identify factors that have a causal effect on food intake.