Alleged Approach-Avoidance Conflict for Food Stimuli in Binge Eating Disorder

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 11; no. 4; p. e0152271
• Main Authors: Leehr, Elisabeth J., Schag, Kathrin, Brinkmann, Amelie, Ehlis, Ann-Christine, Fallgatter, Andreas J., Zipfel, Stephan, Giel, Katrin E., Dresler, Thomas
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 05.04.2016; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Analysis; Anorexia; Appetite (Psychophysiology); Avoidance; Avoidance behavior; Avoidance Learning; Binge eating; Binge eating disorder; Binge-Eating Disorder - physiopathology; Binge-Eating Disorder - psychology; Biology and Life Sciences; Body weight; Bulimia; Eating behavior; Eating disorders; Electromyography; Female; Food; Food processing; Humans; Male; Medicine and Health Sciences; Middle Aged; Obesity; Overweight; Overweight - physiopathology; Overweight - psychology; Physical Sciences; Research and Analysis Methods; Stimuli; Studies; Therapeutic applications; Germany
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152271
• ISSN: 1932-6203

Food 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. We 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. Regarding 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. BED+ 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.