No Evidence for a Food-Related Attention Bias after Thought Suppression

<span>The aim of this study was to investigate whether food-related thought suppression results in an attention bias for food cues. Fifty-nine female students took part in the experiment. All completed a modified exogenous cueing task containing pictures of foods and toys with a similar valenc...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Barbara Soetens, Caroline Braet, Guy Bosmans
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Ubiquity Press 2008-01-01
Series:Psychologica Belgica
Online Access:http://www.psychologicabelgica.com/articles/113
id doaj-50c7fa60ac9a41369cc7e0412d221737
record_format Article
spelling doaj-50c7fa60ac9a41369cc7e0412d2217372020-11-24T22:52:40ZengUbiquity PressPsychologica Belgica0033-28792054-670X2008-01-01481376110.5334/pb-48-1-37113No Evidence for a Food-Related Attention Bias after Thought SuppressionBarbara Soetens0Caroline Braet1Guy Bosmans2Department of Applied Psychology, Catholic University of LeuvenDepartment of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent UniversityDepartment of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University<span>The aim of this study was to investigate whether food-related thought suppression results in an attention bias for food cues. Fifty-nine female students took part in the experiment. All completed a modified exogenous cueing task containing pictures of foods and toys with a similar valence (presentation duration: 250 ms and 1050 ms). Half of the participants were instructed to suppress thoughts about food and the other half was given control instructions, prior to completing the exogenous cueing task. No evidence was found for an enhanced cue validity effect for food cues after food-related thought suppression. Hence, the preliminary results do not provide support for the hypothesis that thought suppression is sufficient to yield an attention bias. Since the study was the first to employ an exogenous cueing task to study the attentional processing of food cues, replication is warranted.</span>http://www.psychologicabelgica.com/articles/113
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Barbara Soetens
Caroline Braet
Guy Bosmans
spellingShingle Barbara Soetens
Caroline Braet
Guy Bosmans
No Evidence for a Food-Related Attention Bias after Thought Suppression
Psychologica Belgica
author_facet Barbara Soetens
Caroline Braet
Guy Bosmans
author_sort Barbara Soetens
title No Evidence for a Food-Related Attention Bias after Thought Suppression
title_short No Evidence for a Food-Related Attention Bias after Thought Suppression
title_full No Evidence for a Food-Related Attention Bias after Thought Suppression
title_fullStr No Evidence for a Food-Related Attention Bias after Thought Suppression
title_full_unstemmed No Evidence for a Food-Related Attention Bias after Thought Suppression
title_sort no evidence for a food-related attention bias after thought suppression
publisher Ubiquity Press
series Psychologica Belgica
issn 0033-2879
2054-670X
publishDate 2008-01-01
description <span>The aim of this study was to investigate whether food-related thought suppression results in an attention bias for food cues. Fifty-nine female students took part in the experiment. All completed a modified exogenous cueing task containing pictures of foods and toys with a similar valence (presentation duration: 250 ms and 1050 ms). Half of the participants were instructed to suppress thoughts about food and the other half was given control instructions, prior to completing the exogenous cueing task. No evidence was found for an enhanced cue validity effect for food cues after food-related thought suppression. Hence, the preliminary results do not provide support for the hypothesis that thought suppression is sufficient to yield an attention bias. Since the study was the first to employ an exogenous cueing task to study the attentional processing of food cues, replication is warranted.</span>
url http://www.psychologicabelgica.com/articles/113
work_keys_str_mv AT barbarasoetens noevidenceforafoodrelatedattentionbiasafterthoughtsuppression
AT carolinebraet noevidenceforafoodrelatedattentionbiasafterthoughtsuppression
AT guybosmans noevidenceforafoodrelatedattentionbiasafterthoughtsuppression
_version_ 1725665072869539840