Introduction

Restrained eaters have a relatively strong positive automatic association with food that is high in fat content, but their explicit evaluation of food with high fat content is more negative. This dissociation explains why they have a contradictory diet, where they eat a lot of diets on the one hand and often eat too much on the other. This study looked at the automatic approach tendency that people had with regard to food with much or little fat. It has been shown in another study that people who eat too much have a stronger tendency to approach than normal eaters. People who eat too much are approaching food relatively quickly and relatively slow when they have to avoid it. The task in this study was to move a puppet to a stimulus (picture of food) or away from a stimulus, using arrow keys. The study looked at the automatic food-related approach tendencies and affective associations on the disordered food intake.

Method

To investigate the automatic approach, the Affective Simon Task manikin version (AST manikin) was used. Subjects were shown a stimulus and had to use the arrow keys to move a puppet towards or away from the stimulus. To determine the affective association that someone with a stimulus had, the Affective Simon Task voice key (AST voice key) was used. When seeing a stimulus, test subjects had to indicate whether they thought it was nice or dirty, by saying this loudly.

Results

Limited and unlimited eaters did not differ in their self-report on how often they ate food that was high and low in fat content. They also did not differ in their degree of hunger during the experiment.

AST voice task

There were a total of three stimulus types: high-fat food, low-fat food, neutral food. There were 2 response types: tasty or dirty. Subjects were faster when they liked something than when they found something dirty. They were faster with high-fat stimuli than low-fat stimuli and neutral stimuli. An interaction effect was found between stimulus type and response. So there was a different reaction pattern for high-fat food, low-fat food and neutral stimuli. However, limited and unlimited eaters did not differ. In general, test subjects found eating much higher fat to be better than eating low fat.

AST manikin

There were three types of stimulus for this task: high-fat food, low-fat food and neutral stimuli. There were two response types: approach or avoidance. And there were two groups: limited or unlimited eaters. A main effect has been found; In general, test subjects were faster when they had to move the puppet towards the stimulus than when they had to move the puppet away from the stimulus. An interaction effect was also found between stimulus type, response and group. Limited and unlimited eaters showed a different reaction pattern on food and on neutral stimuli. Thus, limited eaters showed an improved approach tendency for food, while such approach tendency was absent in unlimited eaters.

Limited and unlimited eaters reported different craving patterns. Unlimited eaters reported more craving for low fat food than for high fat food. While limited eaters indicated no difference in their self-reports between craving for high fat and low fat food. There is a small correlation between the automatic positive responses and automatic approach tendencies for high fat eating.

Discussion

This study looked at the role of improved approach tendencies and affective associations in overeating. Regardless of whether people eat in a limited way or not, test subjects all show a stronger automatic affective association with eating a lot of fat than eating low fat. While a preference for such high-fat eating was absent in the explicit self-report evaluations. Limited eaters reported the same craving for low fat eating as for high fat eating, while unlimited eaters had a stronger craving for low fat eating than for high fat eating.

This research provides no evidence for the hypothesis that strong automatic positive affective associations with food play an important role in the disregulation of food intake in limited eaters. In line with the incentive-sensitization theory, this study shows relatively strong approach tendencies for food in limited eaters. These results also agree with Robinson and Berridge (1993) hypothesis that motivational aspects in relation to food play an important role in the disregulation of food intake.

Contrary to expectations, no other approach pattern was found in limited eaters for high-fat and low-fat foods. Apparently, limited eaters have a motivational orientation towards eating in general and not so much a strong motivational orientation towards eating high fat.

Limited eaters showed the same amount of craving for eating a lot of fat as for low-fat eating. While unlimited eaters had less craving for high than for low fat. This lesser craving for eating high fat in unlimited eaters is perhaps a protection against overeating.

This study showed that in normal eating, affective associations with eating are stronger for eating high fat than for eating low fat, whereas no stronger motivation for eating high fat was found. Even though people who ate too much showed the same pattern of affective associations, they showed stronger automatic approach tendencies for eating high and low fat. These improved approaches to eating probably contribute to their dysfunctional eating pattern.