The Influence Of Inhibition Control And Sensitivity To Reward On Eating Behavior

Impulsive is a multi-dimensional concept, generally defined as the conduct that was either considered immature, excessive risk or lead to unconformable behavior to the environment. In the field of diet and weight management, impulsive has two approaches:inhibition focus and motivate focus. Inhibition focus means behavior inhibition. When faced with the external environment, people can inhibit dominant responses, adjust their behavior.Motivate focus means sensitivity to reward, individuals cope with external temptations, and they will continue to seek out for external reward information to meet individual needs, which may be easy to overlook the behavior of external punishment information.In inhibiting orientation, inhibition control could predict the eating behavior in self-report method, while researches only use stop signal task to investigate the impulsive individual differences in eating behavior and the results also need to be clarified in healthy adults. Orientation in the activation, there were only self-report researches exploring the relationship between sensitivity to reward and eating behavior in adult. Behavior paradigm measuring the sensitivity to reward was only used in children. In the field of eating behavior, the behavior paradigm was singleness and only used opening door task. We can use the delay discounting task to measure the sensitivity to reward that was abroad used in material abuse field.Experiment one, exploring the inhibition control influence on eating behavior, use the BIS-11-C measure self-report of behavioral inhibition, use the stop signal task and spatial stroop task measuring objective behavior inhibition, use DEBQ and food tasting experiment to represent self-report eating behavior scores and the behavioral eating behavior scores. The results showed that both in eating behavior scores and the behavioral eating behavior scores, there were significant differences between the high and low inhibition control groups through splitting BIS-11-C scores, the higher the BIS-11-C scores, the more they might eat; there was no difference between high an low inhibition groups through stroop conflict and error rate. it may mean the spatial stroop could not predict the eating behavior; in the fourth block of the stop signal task, the group difference also exist between the high and low inhibition groups. It implicit that stop signal task indeed could predict eating behavior. The results showed that questionnaires measuring inhibition control can indeed predict eating behavior; for the behavior paradigms, the results of the two behavioral approaches were different for they might test different aspects of impulsive.Experiment two, exploring the sensitivity to reward influence on eating behavior, use SPSRQ to measure self-report of the sensitivity to punishment and the sensitivity to reward, use opening door task and delay discounting task to measure the objective of sensitivity to reward, use DEBQ and food tasting experiment to represent self-report eating behavior scores and the behavioral eating behavior scores. The results showed that, both in eating behavior scores and the behavioral eating behavior scores, there were significant differences between the high and low sensitivity to reward groups through splitting SPSRQ scores, the higher the sensitivity to reward score, the more they might eat; There was also a significant difference between high and low sensitivity groups through opening door task.it might mean the more the opening door number, the more they might eat; the groups difference also exist through delay discounting task, the more sensitivity to the small immediate reward, the more they might eat. Study 2 showed that t The higher the sensitivity rewards, the more they may eat both in self-report and behavioral approaches; opening door task indeed could use in adult to distinguish the sensitivity to reward groups; The delay discounting task also could be applied to the field of eating behavior in normal participants to distinguish the eating behavior of different sensitivity to reward groups.Conclusion:(1) self-report method of measuring behavioral inhibition and sensitivity to reward can be used to predict eating behavior, both in eating behavior scores and in real eating behavior.(2) In inhibition focus, stop signal task could distinguish the eating behavior between high and low group.The lower the inhibition controls, the more they may eat.(3) In motivated focus, the opening door tasks and the delay discounting task could significantly predict the eating behavior.The higher the sensitivity rewards, the more they might eat.(4) Opening door task can be applied to distinguish between high and low groups of sensitivity to reward in adults. (5) Delay discounting task that is widely used in the field of substance addiction can be applied to measure sensitivity to reward in the normal population in eating behavior field.