The effects of exposure to appetitive cues on inhibitory control: A meta-analytic investigation

Andrew Jones · Eric Robinson · Jay J. Duckworth · Inge Kersbergen · Natasha Clarke · Matt Field

35 citations0/0 files storedAppetite

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Behavioral Health and Interventions Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Abstract

Inhibitory control refers to the ability to stop, change or delay a response, and is often used in order to protect higher order goals. Theoretical models suggest that appetitive cues such as pictures of alcoholic drinks or food evoke strong automatic appetitive responses which lead to transient impairments in inhibitory control, and that these effects of cues may be related to individual differences (e.g. in body mass index, or alcohol consumption). In order to investigate these claims we conducted a random effects meta-analysis of 66 effect sizes (35 alcohol, 31 food) from 37 articles that tested the effect of exposure to appetitive (alcohol/food) cues on indices of inhibitory control. The overall effect of cue exposure was small, but robust (SMD = −0.12 [95% CI −0.23, −0.02]; Z = 2.34, p = .02, I 2 = 84%). Exposure to alcohol-related cues significantly impaired inhibitory control (SMD = −0.21 [95% CI = −0.32, −0.11]; Z = 4.17, p < .001), however exposure to food-related cues did not lead to impairments (SMD = −0.03 [95% CI = −0.21, 0.15]; Z = 0.36, p = .720). There was no evidence that drinking or weight status significantly moderated the effects of cues on inhibitory control. Similarly, cue modality (words, pictures, or smells) did not significantly moderate the effects. Trim and Fill analysis suggested bias in the literature, which when corrected, made the overall effect of cues non-significant. Overall, these findings provide some tentative support for theoretical claims that exposure to appetitive cues prompts transient impairments in inhibitory control. Further research is required to determine the clinical significance of these observations. However, care should be taken when drawing conclusions from a potentially biased evidence base.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 2011Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses 2002Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues 2009Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) in studies of substance use.2011On Conceptualizing Self-Control as More Than the Effortful Inhibition of Impulses 2015Food cue reactivity and craving predict eating and weight gain: a meta‐analytic review 2015Does inhibitory control training improve health behaviour? A meta-analysis 2010Control yourself or just eat what you like? Weight gain over a year is predicted by an interactive effect of response inhibition and implicit preference for snack foods.

Cited by

2018Impulsivity is associated with food intake, snacking, and eating disorders in a general population 2019Adaptive Indulgence in Self-Control: A Multilevel Cost–Benefit Analysis

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.