Cognitive Mechanisms underlying Individual Differences in Negative Emotional Consumption of Junk Food

The current study investigated two hypothesised models of Negative Emotional Consumption of Junk Food (NECJF). A cognitive bias to
negative emotional information model proposes that females prone to NECJF experience greater elevations in negative mood in response to a
stressor, compared with those who are not prone to NECJF, because they have a stronger dispositional approach bias to negative emotional
information, and elevations in negative mood mediate the association between a stressor and junk food consumption. The cognitive bias to
junk food information model proposes that while in a negative mood state, females prone to NECJF have a stronger approach bias to junk
food information, compared with those who are not prone to NECJF, and this approach bias will mediate the association between negative
mood and junk food consumption.
Participants were 81-undergraduate women (age range:17-25) who completed the approach-avoidance task to assess their approach biases to
negative emotional and junk food information. Biases were assessed prior to and during a stress manipulation. Half of the participants were
assigned to a high stress condition designed to induce negative mood, and half were assigned to a low stress condition designed not to induce
negative mood. Junk food consumption was measured with a “bogus” taste-test. The newly developed Emotional Consumption of Food
Questionnaire, and the widely used Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire, were used to measure participants propensity to consume greater
amounts of junk food in response to negative emotions (NECJF-disposition).
Overall, the results did not provide support for the pattern of effects predicted by the models. In regard to the cognitive bias to negative
emotional information model, participants endorsing a high NECJF-disposition did not respond to the high stress condition with greater
elevations in negative mood, nor did they exhibit a stronger dispositional approach bias to negative emotional information. In regard to the
cognitive bias to junk food information model participants endorsing a high NECJF-disposition did not exhibit a temporarily stronger
approach bias to junk food information while in a negative mood state, and nor did this approach bias mediate the association between
negative mood and junk food consumption. Importantly, however, neither scores on the relevant scales of the Emotional Consumption of
Food Questionnaire nor the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire significantly moderated the association between negative mood and junk
food consumption. Therefore, the current study did not successfully measure individual differences in the eating style that two models were
proposed to explain. Consequently, the validity of the two models could not adequately be tested.
The results suggest that before researchers can begin to identify the cognitive mechanisms contributing to individual differences in NECJF, a
reliable and valid measure of individual differences in this eating style is needed- ideally one that does not rely on self-report. Only once
such a measure is developed will research be able to identify the cognitive mechanisms that contribute to this eating style and subsequently
inform clinical interventions aimed at remediating problematic junk food consumption in response to negative emotions.