Close printable page
Recommendation

Does interpretation of actions as either avoid or inhibit influence choice behaviour for candy?

based on reviews by Alexander MacLellan and Katrijn Houben
A recommendation of:
STAGE 1

Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses

Zhang Chen, Pieter Van Dessel, Bernd Figner https://osf.io/bn5xa version 2

Abstract

EN
AR
ES
FR
HI
JA
PT
RU
ZH-CN
Submission: posted 17 June 2024
Recommendation: posted 27 September 2024, validated 30 September 2024
Cite this recommendation as:
Jones, A. (2024) Does interpretation of actions as either avoid or inhibit influence choice behaviour for candy?. Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=846

Recommendation

Experimental research demonstrates that executing or inhibiting motor responses (or approaching / avoiding) towards a stimulus can alter the valuation of the stimulus (Yang et al., 2022). There are competing theories as to the proposed mechanisms of value change, such as increased response conflict or prediction errors (Houben & Aulbach, 2023). However, research has mostly examined response execution/inhibition and approach/avoidance in isolation and the few studies that have examined these together have focused on stimulus evaluation as an outcome.
 
In the present study, Chen et al. (2024) will use a novel version of a combined go/no-go / approach avoidance paradigm to test the effects on choice of consumable candy. In this task, participants are randomly assigned to make a response framed as a go / no-go action or an approach / avoidance action to control a shopping cart (Chen & Van Dessel, 2024). Following this they will complete a food choice task in which participants make a series of binary choices for different candies. Their performance on this task will lead to the receipt of real-world candy. The authors aim to test whether the same responses will lead to different effects on food choice, depending on how the response was interpreted (e.g. participants in the approach/avoidance instruction group will select Approach items more often than those in the go/no-go instruction group). The study is well powered to detect the proposed effect size of interest, and data will be analysed using Bayesian mixed-effect models.
 
This study will shed light onto theoretical predictions of action interpretation on stimulus value and choice, which may improve the efficacy of behaviour change tools such as approach bias training in future.  
 
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the recommender and reviewers' comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/bn5xa (under temporary private embargo)
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA. 
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 
 
References

 
1. Chen, Z. and Van Dessel, P. (2024). Action interpretation determines the effects of go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions on stimulus evaluation. Open Mind, 8, 898-923.  https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00151
 
2. Chen, Z., Van Dessel, P., and Figner, B. (2024). Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/bn5xa
 
3. Houben, K. and Aulbach, M. (2023). Is there a difference between stopping and avoiding? A review of the mechanisms underlying Go/No-Go and Approach-Avoidance training for food choice. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 49, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2022.101245
 
4. Yang, Y., Qi, L., Morys, F., Wu, Q. and Chen, H. (2022). Food-Specific Inhibition Training for Food Devaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Nutrients, 14, 1363. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14071363
 
Conflict of interest:
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.

Reviews

Reviewed by , 13 Sep 2024

I wish to thank the authors for their careful consideration of the comments that were raised on the previous draft of the manuscript. I have no further comments on this revision and look forward to learning the results of this interesting research.

Reviewed by ORCID_LOGO, 19 Sep 2024

The authors have fully addressed all the comments made in the previous round of reviews, adding clarifications to their sample size estimation and analysis plan, and a rationale for the inclusion of memory tasks, dietary restraint and hunger as exploratory measures. 

This adds to an already high quality manuscript which I recommend for acceptance, and will look forward to reading the Stage 2 report.

Alexander MacLellan

Evaluation round #1

DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/hf7vn

Version of the report: 1

Author's Reply, 02 Sep 2024

Decision by , posted 11 Jul 2024, validated 11 Jul 2024

There are two high quality reviews here that see merit in your work. As such, we invite you to respond the the comments. 

Reviewed by , 04 Jul 2024

The manuscript addresses an important and relevant question regarding GNG and AAT procedures as implemented in food-related research (and other applied domains). The introduction offers a comprehensive theoretical and empirical background, effectively leading to the study's aims and hypotheses. The methods are clearly described, ensuring reproducibility, and the analyses are detailed and well-explained. I particularly also want to emphasize that I appreciate the authors' dedication to conducting rigorous and reproducible research.

Given the manuscript's high quality, I recommend its publication with only minor revisions, as explained below.

- The authors report power analyses and ultimately decide to include 100 participants per condition (N = 200 in total). In the next paragraph detailing the sample, the authors however state that they planned to recruit 160 participants (who were at least 18 years old). So there appears to be an inconsistency here that needs clarification.

- The method also describes a memory task which is not previously mentioned in the study aims/hypotheses nor in the statistical analyses section. Similarly measures of dietary restraint and hunger are collected but not further elaborated. I presume that these would be part of the exploratory analyses? Perhaps it would be good if the authors could also provide a brief rationale for inclusion of these measures.

I am confident that the research findings will contribute to current developments in this research area both from a methodological and theoretical perspective. I look forward to reading the manuscript again once the data have been collected and analyzed.

Reviewed by ORCID_LOGO, 02 Jul 2024

This paper aims to investigate whether Go/NoGo cues vs Approach/Avoidance cues influence behaviour when selecting appetitive food. The question is an interesting and valid question, and the authors have a well detailed, and considered study planned. There is a clear logic and rationale, with clear implications for cognitive training programmes for unhealthy eating. The manuscript in its current state is well written, providing sufficient detail to allow for replication, and meets the majority of the issues to consider at Stage 1 of a PCI RR. My comments are as follows:

Main comments:

-          The sampling plan is very well described with an extended justification of their first sample size estimate, however the decision to recruit 100 participants per group when they state 58 in each is sufficient. Might it not be better to continue recruit until that sample size is reached (after exclusions etc.) rather than over-recruit?

-          The authors then state they will recruit 160 participants in the ‘Participants’ section (page 13), which is inconsistent with their sample size estimation.

 

Minor comments:

-          As a minor comment, but in the interest of transparency, it would be a positive to see a statement added at this stage as to the level of bias control achieved in this study (e.g. Level 6), as well as statements on data and code availability. 

-          The first specified analysis, ratings before the training, appears to be frequentist, but no details of frequentist assessment criteria are given.