Alleged Approach-Avoidance Conflict for Food Stimuli in Binge Eating Disorder |
| |
Authors: | Elisabeth J. Leehr Kathrin Schag Amelie Brinkmann Ann-Christine Ehlis Andreas J. Fallgatter Stephan Zipfel Katrin E. Giel Thomas Dresler |
| |
Affiliation: | 1Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Tuebingen, Internal Medicine VI, Tuebingen, Germany;2Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany;3LEAD Graduate School, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany;4Department of Medicine and Psychosomatics, Centre for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany;Tsinghua University, CHINA |
| |
Abstract: | ObjectiveFood stimuli are omnipresent and naturally primary reinforcing stimuli. One explanation for the intake of high amounts of food in binge eating disorder (BED) is a deviant valuation process. Valuation of food stimuli is supposed to influence approach or avoidance behaviour towards food. Focusing on self-reported and indirect (facial electromyography) valuation process, motivational aspects in the processing of food stimuli were investigated.MethodsWe compared an overweight sample with BED (BED+) with an overweight sample without BED (BED-) and with normal weight controls (NWC) regarding their self-reported and indirect (via facial electromyography) valuation of food versus non-food stimuli.ResultsRegarding the self-reported valuation, the BED+ sample showed a significantly stronger food-bias compared to the BED- sample, as food stimuli were rated as significantly more positive than the non-food stimuli in the BED+ sample. This self-reported valuation pattern could not be displayed in the indirect valuation. Food stimuli evoked negative indirect valuation in all groups. The BED+ sample showed the plainest approach-avoidance conflict marked by a diverging self-reported (positive) and indirect (negative) valuation of food stimuli.ConclusionsBED+ showed a deviant self-reported valuation of food as compared to BED-. The valuation process of the BED+ sample seems to be characterized by a motivational ambivalence. This ambivalence should be subject of further studies and may be of potential use for therapeutic interventions. |
| |
Keywords: | |
|
|