When Mere Action Versus Inaction Leads to Robust Preference Change

• Published in: Journal of personality and social psychology 2019-10, Vol.117 (4), p.721-740
• Main Authors: Chen, Zhang, Holland, Rob W, Quandt, Julian, Dijksterhuis, Ap, Veling, Harm
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Action; Adult; Behavior; Behavior Change; Behavior Therapy; Choice Behavior; Consumption; Decision Making; Diet, Healthy; Female; Food; Food Intake; Food Preferences; Food Preferences - psychology; Generalizability; Healthy food; Human; Humans; Impulsive Behavior; Male; Motivation; Preferences; Pressure; Reliability; Reproducibility of Results; Social Environment; Task; Time; Training; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0022-3514; 1939-1315
• DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000158

Understanding the formation and modification of preferences is important for explaining human behavior across many domains. Here we examined when and how preferences for food items can be changed by linking mere action versus inaction to these items. In 7 preregistered experiments, participants were trained to consistently respond to certain food items (go items) and not respond to other items (no-go items) in a go/no-go training. Next, to assess preferences, they repeatedly chose between go and no-go items for consumption. Decision time during the choice task was manipulated and measured. Immediately after training, participants chose go items more often for consumption when choosing under time pressure, for both high-value and low-value choice pairs. Preferences were reliably changed in favor of go items for choices between unhealthy foods, between healthy foods, and between healthy and unhealthy foods. Furthermore, preference change was still observed one week after training, although the effect size largely decreased. Interestingly, when participants made choices without time pressure, the effect became weaker and statistically nonsignificant. These results suggest that preference change induced by mere responding versus not responding is constrained to situations where people take little time to make decisions, and the effect is relatively short-lived. By showing the reliability, generalizability and boundary conditions of the effect, these findings advance our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of go/no-go training, provide more insights into how the training can be effectively applied, and raise new theoretical questions on how mere action versus inaction impacts preferences.