No evidence of attentional bias to food words among non-clinical female restrained eaters

Abstract

Past research has demonstrated mixed findings on attentional biases toward food and body words among non-clinical restrained eaters (Brooks, S., Prince, A., Stahl, D., Campbell, I. C., & Treasure, J. (2011). A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive bias to food stimuli in people with disordered eating behavior. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 37–151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.09.006 ; Dobson, K. S., & Dozois, D. J. (2004). Attentional biases in eating disorders: A meta-analytic review of Stroop performance. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1001−1022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2003.09.004 ; Francis, J. A., Stewart, S. H., & Hounsell, S. (1997). Dietary restraint and the selective processing of forbidden and nonforbidden food words. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21(6), 633–646. doi:10.1023/A:1021804207132). Addressing previous methodological issues, this study examined college female restrained eaters’ attentional bias to food words. We used 120 college females – 20 were classified as restrained eaters by the Restrained Eating subscale of Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (Van Strien, T., Frijters, J. E., Bergers, G. P., & Defares, P. B. (1986). The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behavior. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 5(2), 295–315. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-108X(198602)5:2 3.0.CO;2-T ). Using a computer-based program called MouseTracker for a Stroop test (Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method . Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 226–241. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.1.226), attentional bias indicators of both process (i.e., what happens while attention is captured and directed; Area under the Curve and Maximum Deviation) and outcome (i.e., the end results of attention captured by certain stimuli; Reaction Time and Percentage of Errors) were measured to forbidden (i.e., unhealthy) and unforbidden (i.e., healthy) food words over animal words (i.e., used as control condition). Word stimuli were matched on frequency and syllables between conditions (Francis, J. A., Stewart, S. H., & Hounsell, S. (1997). Dietary restraint and the selective processing of forbidden and nonforbidden food words. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21(6), 633–646. doi:10.1023/A:1021804207132). No evidence of attentional bias to food words was found among non-clinical restrained eaters. Based on the results in the current study, non-clinical restrained eaters with no accompanying overeating may not show attentional bias to food words. Future studies could compare clinical and non-clinical restrained eaters with and without overeating symptoms on attentional bias to food versus body stimuli.