Nutrition claims influence expectations about food attributes, attenuate activity in reward-associated brain regions during tasting, but do not impact pleasantness.

INTRODUCTION: Nutrition claims are one of the most common tools used to improve food decisions. Previous research has shown that nutrition claims impact expectations; however, their effects on perceived pleasantness, valuation, and their neural correlates are not well understood. These claims may have both intended and unintended effects on food perception and valuation, which may compromise their effect on food decisions. METHODS: We investigated the effects of nutrition claims on expectations, perceptions, and valuation of milk-mix drinks in a behavioral (n = 110) and an fMRI (n = 39) study. In the behavioral study, we assessed the effects of a "fat-reduced" and a "protein-rich" nutrition claim on expected and perceived food attributes of otherwise equal food products. In the fMRI study, we investigated the effect of a "protein-rich" claim on taste pleasantness perception and valuation, and on their neural correlates during tasting and swallowing. RESULTS: We found that both nutrition claims increased expected and perceived healthiness and decreased expected but not perceived taste pleasantness. The "protein-rich" claim increased expected but not perceived satiating quality ratings, while the "fat-reduced" claim decreased both expected and perceived satiating quality ratings. In the absence vs. presence of the "protein-rich" claim, we observed an increased activity in a cluster extending to the left nucleus accumbens during tasting and an increased functional connectivity between this cluster and a cluster in right middle frontal gyrus during swallowing. CONCLUSION: Altogether, we found that nutrition claims impacted expectations and attenuated reward-related responses during tasting but did not negatively affect perceived pleasantness. Our findings support highlighting the presence of nutrients with positive associations and exposure to foods with nutrition claims to increase their acceptance. Our study offers insights that may be valuable in designing and optimizing the use of nutrition claims.

Individual Differences in Intertemporal Choice.

Intertemporal choice involves deciding between smaller, sooner and larger, later rewards. People tend to prefer smaller rewards that are available earlier to larger rewards available later, a phenomenon referred to as temporal or delay discounting. Despite its ubiquity in human and non-human animals, temporal discounting is subject to considerable individual differences. Here, we provide a critical narrative review of this literature and make suggestions for future work. We conclude that temporal discounting is associated with key socio-economic and health-related variables. Regarding personality, large-scale studies have found steeper temporal discounting to be associated with higher levels of self-reported impulsivity and extraversion; however, effect sizes are small. Temporal discounting correlates negatively with future-oriented cognitive styles and inhibitory control, again with small effect sizes. There are consistent associations between steeper temporal discounting and lower intelligence, with effect sizes exceeding those of personality or cognitive variables, although socio-demographic moderator variables may play a role. Neuroimaging evidence of brain structural and functional correlates is not yet consistent, neither with regard to areas nor directions of effects. Finally, following early candidate gene studies, recent Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS) approaches have revealed the molecular genetic architecture of temporal discounting to be more complex than initially thought. Overall, the study of individual differences in temporal discounting is a maturing field that has produced some replicable findings. Effect sizes are small-to-medium, necessitating future hypothesis-driven work that prioritizes large samples with adequate power calculations. More research is also needed regarding the neural origins of individual differences in temporal discounting as well as the mediating neural mechanisms of associations of temporal discounting with personality and cognitive variables.

Do Disadvantageous Social Contexts Influence Food Choice? Evidence From Three Laboratory Experiments.

Increasing rates of obesity have fueled interest in the factors underlying food choice. While epidemiological studies report that disadvantaged social groups exhibit a higher incidence of obesity, causal evidence for an effect of social contexts on food choice remains scarce. To further our knowledge, we experimentally investigated the effect of disadvantageous social context on food choice in healthy, non-dieting participants. We used three established experimental methods to generate social contexts of different valence in controlled laboratory settings: (i) receiving varying amounts of money in a Dictator Game (DG; n = 40), (ii) being included or excluded in a Cyberball Game (CBG; n = 35), and (iii) performing well, average, or poorly in a response time ranking task (RTR; n = 81). Following exposure to a particular social context, participants made pairwise choices between food items that involved a conflict between perceived taste and health attributes. In line with previous research, stronger dispositional self-control (assessed via a questionnaire) was associated with healthier food choices. As expected, being treated unfairly in the DG, being excluded in the CBG, and performing poorly in the RTR led to negative emotions. However, we did not find an effect of the induced social context on food choice in any of the experiments, even when taking into account individual differences in participants' responses to the social context. Our results suggest that-at least in controlled laboratory environments-the influence of disadvantageous social contexts on food choice is limited.

Salient nutrition labels shift peoples' attention to healthy foods and exert more influence on their choices.

Nutrition labels are the most commonly used tools to promote healthy choices. Research has shown that color-coded traffic light (TL) labels are more effective than purely numerical Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) labels at promoting healthy eating. While these effects of TL labels on food choice are hypothesized to rely on attention, how this occurs remains unknown. Based on previous eye-tracking research we hypothesized that TL labels compared to GDA labels will attract more attention, will induce shifts in attention allocation to healthy food items, and will increase the influence of attention to the labels on food choice. To test our hypotheses, we conducted an eye-tracking experiment where participants chose between healthy and unhealthy food items accompanied either by TL or GDA labels. We found that TL labels biased choices towards healthier items because their presence caused participants to allocate more attention to healthy items and less to unhealthy items. Moreover, our data indicated that TL labels were more likely to be looked at, and had a larger effect on choice, despite attracting less dwell time. These results reveal that TL labels increase healthy food choice, relative to GDA labels, by shifting attention and the effects of attention on choice.