Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27562777›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of nutrition2017

Factors influencing the reinforcing value of fruit and unhealthy snacks.

L Vervoort, A Clauwaert, L Vandeweghe, J Vangeel, W Van Lippevelde, L Goossens, L Huybregts, C Lachat, S Eggermont, K Beullens and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

L VervoortDepartment of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. Leentje.Vervoort@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5082-7175
A ClauwaertDepartment of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
L VandewegheDepartment of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
J VangeelLeuven School for Mass Communication Research, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
W Van LippeveldeDepartment of Public Health, Ghent University, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
L GoossensDepartment of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
L HuybregtsPoverty, Health and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K St, NW, Washington, DC, 20006-1002, USA.
C LachatDepartment of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
S EggermontLeuven School for Mass Communication Research, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
K BeullensLeuven School for Mass Communication Research, KU Leuven, Parkstraat 45, 3000, Louvain, Belgium.
C BraetDepartment of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
N De CockDepartment of Food Safety and Food Quality, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe present study investigated the reinforcing value of healthy and unhealthy snack food in adolescents (n = 108, aged 14-16 years). Moderation by access to different foods, sex and the personality trait reward sensitivity is tested.

methodsIn a computerized Food Reinforcement Task, adolescents could earn portions of a healthy and an unhealthy snack following an identical progressive reinforcement schedule for both food types. Reinforcing value of food was indexed by the number of button presses for each food type. Participants were allocated randomly to two-order condition: fruit-snack versus snack-fruit. Reward sensitivity was assessed with the Dutch age-downward version of Carver and White's BIS/BAS scale.

resultsResults showed that the reinforcing value of an unhealthy snack is higher than that of fruit, with participants making more button presses for unhealthy snacks, M = 1280.40, SD = 1203.53, than for fruit, M = 488.04, SD = 401.45, F(1,48) = 25.37, p < 0.001. This effect is stronger in boys (β = -1367.67) than in girls (β = -548.61). The effect is only present in the snack-fruit condition, not in the fruit-snack condition, indicating that access to food moderates the effect of food type. There is no evidence for moderation by reward sensitivity.

conclusionsResults point to the importance of simultaneously increasing barriers to obtain unhealthy food and promoting access to healthy food in order to facilitate healthy food choices.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorFood PreferencesFruitReinforcement, PsychologySnacksAdolescentBody Mass IndexDietDiet, HealthyFemaleHumansMaleMotivationSex FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTasteAdolescentsFood rewardReinforcing value of foodReward sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID27562777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.