Implicit and explicit safety evaluation of foods: The importance of food processing

High arousal as the source of food rejection in food neophobia

Food neophobia (FN) at moderate to high levels is very common among adult populations in all cultures and is usually defined in terms of rejection of unfamiliar foods. However, food rejection in FN is only partly related to food familiarity. Experimental and survey studies have suggested that unpleasantly high arousal may be induced by food novelty, but also be produced by foods with intense or complex flavours, that are perceived as dangerous or foreign, or that have unusual ingredients. Liking for foods with these characteristics have recently been shown to be strongly negatively associated with FN. Thus, induced high arousal may underlie food rejection in FN. Here, we collected familiarity, liking and arousal ratings, and scores on the standard Food Neophobia Scale from more than 7000 consumers in four countries - Australia, United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia - for a series of food names that were manipulated to produce standard and 'high arousal' (variant) versions of the same foods. Consistent across all four countries, arousal ratings increased, and liking decreased, with decreases in food familiarity. Variant food names were always associated with ratings of higher arousal than the standard names. The variant foods were generally less familiar than the standard foods, although this was not a necessary condition for their higher arousal ratings, suggesting that the other arousal-inducing factors (e.g., flavour intensity) also played a role. Across all foods, arousal ratings increased, and liking ratings decreased, as FN increased, but these effects were accentuated for the variant foods. The consistency of these effects across multiple countries supports a view that arousal is universally a strong determinant of liking for foods and that this underlies the rejection of foods, familiar and novel, in FN.

Measuring food-related inhibition with go/no-go tasks: Critical considerations for experimental design

The use of go/no-go tasks to assess inhibitory control over food stimuli is becoming increasingly popular. However, the wide variability in the design of these tasks makes it difficult to fully leverage their results. The goal of this commentary was to provide researchers with crucial aspects to consider when designing food-related go/no-go experiments. We examined 76 studies that used food-themed go/no-go tasks and extracted characteristics related to participant population, methodology, and analysis. Based on our observations of common issues that can influence study conclusions, we stress the importance for researchers to design an appropriate control condition and match stimuli between experimental conditions in terms of emotional and physical properties. We also emphasize that stimuli should be tailored to the participants under study, whether at the individual or group level. To ensure that the task truly measures inhibitory abilities, researchers should promote the establishment of a prepotent response pattern by presenting more go than no-go trials and by using short trials. Researchers should also pre-specify the criteria used to identify potentially invalid data. While go/no-go tasks represent valuable tools for studying food cognition, researchers should choose task parameters carefully and justify their methodological and analytical decisions in order to ensure the validity of results and promote best practices in food-related inhibition research.

Tears for pears: Influence of children’s neophobia on categorization performance and strategy in the food domain

Preschoolers’ neophobic dispositions mainly target fruits and vegetables. They received a great deal of attention in the past decades as these dispositions represent the main psychological barrier to dietary variety. Recently, children’s food neophobia has been found to be negatively correlated with their categorization performance (i.e., the accuracy to discriminate between food categories). We investigated categorization strategies among neophobic children, tendencies to favor one type of error over the other (misses over false alarms), in order to compensate for their poor categorization performance. To capture children’s categorization strategies, we used the Signal Detection Theory framework. A first experiment assessed 120 3-to-6-years old children’ sensitivity to discriminate between foods and nonfoods as well as their decision criterion (i.e., response strategy). In a second experiment, we manipulated the influence of food processing. The hypothesis was that food processing acts as a sign of human interventions that decreases uncertainty about edibility and thus promotes feelings of safety in the food domain. 137 children were tested on a food versus nonfood categorization task contrasting whole and sliced stimuli. In both experiments, increased levels of food neophobia were significantly associated with poorer categorization sensitivity and with a more conservative decision criterion (i.e., favoring “it is inedible” errors). Additionally, results from Experiment 2 revealed that food processing did not influence neophobic children, whereas their neophilic counterparts adopted a more liberal decision criterion for sliced stimuli than for whole stimuli. These findings are the first demonstration of a relationship between a decision criterion and food neophobia in young children. These results have strong implications for theories of food neophobia and laid the groundwork for designing novel types of food education interventions.