Trial reportNutrients2020
Effect of Impulsivity Traits on Food Choice within a Nudging Intervention.
Trial report in Nutrients, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multisession transcranial direct current stimulation and aerobic exercise synergistically improve food craving symptoms, impulsivity, and cognitive flexibility in women with overweight and obesity: a randomized controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Trial
- The association of impulsivity with effects of the ChooseWell 365 workplace nudge intervention on diet and weight.Translational behavioral medicine · 2023Trial
- Article
- Associations Between Personality Traits and Energy Balance Behaviors in Emerging Adulthood: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Article
- Trait Anxiety and Unhealthy Eating in Adult Women: The Mediating Role of Cognitive Instability.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Effects of Ethnically Congruent Music on Eye Movements and Food Choice-A Cross-Cultural Comparison between Danish and Chinese Consumers.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food choices are often driven by impulsive tendencies rather than rational consideration. Some individuals may find it more difficult resisting impulses related to unhealthy food choices, and low self-control and high impulsivity have been suggested to be linked to these behaviors. Recent shifts have been made towards developing strategies that target automatic processes of decision-making and focus on adjusting the environment, referred to as nudging interventions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of impulsivity traits on food choices within a nudging intervention (increased perceived variety). A total of 83 adults participated in an experimental study consisting of a self-service intelligent buffet. Impulsivity traits were measured using the UPPS-P impulsivity scale. General linear models were fitted to evaluate the effect of the five impulsivity traits on the difference of salad consumption (g) between the control and intervention situations. Results showed that impulsivity does not affect food choices in this nudging situation, suggesting that nudging works independently of the participant's impulsivity score. Results also showed a significantly higher consumption of salad in the nudging versus the control setting (17.6 g, p < 0.05), suggesting that nudging interventions can be effective in significantly increasing total vegetable consumption across the whole impulsivity scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.