ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 11 April 2022
doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.788583
Associations Among Food Delay of
Gratification, Cognitive Measures,
and Environment in a Community
Preschool Sample
Nicole R. Giuliani 1* and Nichole R. Kelly 2
1 Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences, Prevention Science Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR,
United States, 2 Department of Counseling Psychology and Human Services, Prevention Science Institute, University of
Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
Much of the work on the development of appetite self-regulation in early childhood
employs tasks assessing Delay of Gratification (DoG). While this skill is thought to rely on
“cool” cognitive processes like effortful control, executive functioning, and self-regulation,
demonstration of how laboratory measures of food DoG relate to common assessments
of those cognitive processes in community samples of children is needed. This study
presents secondary data investigating the associations between two laboratory tasks
of food DoG, the Snack Delay and Tongue Tasks, and an array of laboratory and
Edited by: parent-report cognitive measures in a sample of 88 children ages 3-6 (M age = 4.05,
Alan Russell, SD = 0.76), as well as how four measures of the child’s environment were associated
Flinders University, Australia
with food DoG. Results indicated that both measures of food DoG were positively
Reviewed by:
Sylvie Issanchou, correlated with performance on the cognitive tasks, with stronger associations observed
Institut National de recherche pour for the Tongue Task. Family incomewas positively associatedwith food DoG asmeasured
l’agriculture, l’alimentation et by the Tongue Task, and child negative life events in the past year were negatively
l’environnement (INRAE), France
Jeggan Tiego, correlated with food DoG as measured by the Snack Delay Task. These findings present
Monash University, Australia the pattern of associations between cognitive tasks and food DoG, the development of
*Correspondence: which may be meaningfully affected by specific aspects of family environment.
Nicole R. Giuliani
giuliani@uoregon.edu Keywords: delay of gratification, cognitive measures, executive function, preschool, environment
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to INTRODUCTION
Eating Behavior,
a section of the journal Delay of gratification (DoG) refers to an individual’s ability to forego an immediate reward in
Frontiers in Nutrition favor of a later, larger reward. While DoG can be applied to various rewards, many behavioral
Received: 02 October 2021 paradigms use food stimuli to measure this construct in preschool-aged children (1–3). This is
Accepted: 15 March 2022 referred to in the literature as food-related, or appetite, self-regulation (2). While some of the main
Published: 11 April 2022 cognitive mechanisms that enable successful food DoG in early childhood have been identified
Citation: in previous studies [e.g., effortful control, executive function; see (1, 4)], the measures used to
Giuliani NR and Kelly NR (2022) assess these mechanisms vary. Indeed, a wide array of assessment tools are used in the literature to
Associations Among Food Delay of measure these constructs in early childhood; it remains unclear the degree to which these measures
Gratification, Cognitive Measures, and
capture those constructs and how they relate to DoG performance. To address this gap in the
Environment in a Community
Preschool Sample. literature, the present study employed data collected as part of a larger study to investigate the
Front. Nutr. 9:788583. associations between multiple measures of food DoG and tasks assessing theoretically relevant
doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.788583 cognitive constructs.
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 1 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
Delay of Gratification environmental stress in the present dataset, maternal depression
In the decades of work that have been done on DoG, researchers and negative life events experienced by the child, are risk
have separately conceptualized it as measuring (a) sensitivity factors for high weight in children (32–35) with food-related
to reward value, (b) impulsivity, and (c) top-down regulatory self-regulation proposed as a mechanism (36). Extant research
control (5). While many models of self-regulation situate top- suggests that maternal depression is negatively associated with
down, cognitive processes in dynamic interaction with bottom- food DoG in children [e.g., (37)]. Similarly, experiencing stressful
up reactions to stimuli [e.g., (6–9)], it may be that DoG itself life events such as losing one’s housing to an earthquake has been
represents the entire process. Specifically, DoG behavior captures associated with decreasedDoG (38). This is consistent with a “fast
the degree to which top-down, cognitive processes are engaged life history strategy,” where environmental uncertainty promotes
with the goal of regulating bottom-up reactions to a reward, such seeking immediate gratification (39).
that delay behavior results from the balance achieved between
the two systems. Indeed, DoG depends on “the cognitive and The Present Study
attentional mechanisms that help execute goal directed behavior” The present study uses data collected as part of the Parent-Child
(7). Many such cognitive mechanisms have been evoked with Self-Regulation study (40). While the main focus of the original
regard to successful DoG, including effortful control [EC; (10, study was to quantify associations between parent and child
11)] and executive function [EF; (12–14)]. Interestingly, while measures of food-related DoG and attentional and inhibitory
EF and EC stem from different traditions, they are thought to control, we also gathered additional measures that have not yet
represent overlapping processes (15) and the same tasks are used been published.
to assess them [e.g., Day/Night, Go/NoGo Tasks; (16, 17)]. Here, we present secondary analyses addressing the
However, other conceptualizations of EF may get closer to aforementioned gaps in the literature regarding the associations
capturing the type of cognitive processes engaged during DoG. among (1) food DoG and cognitive measures, and (2) food DoG
Much of the recent work on DoG treats it as a form of “hot” and measures of family income, maternal education, maternal
EF (18), which is “involved in social and affective situations that depression, and recent child negative life events in a community
generate emotion and motivation, as well as tension between sample of typically-developing 3-6 year old children.
immediate gratification and greater long-term reward” (19). Use
of DoG in food contexts can be particularly evocative, as food can METHODS
be rewarding, induce impulsive behavior, and be emotional for
many people (2, 20). There is some evidence that, compared to Participants
non-food rewards, food DoG is uniquely associated with weight Families were recruited via online flyers; criteria for participation
in early childhood (21), supporting the investigation of food DoG were biological mothers over age 18 with children ages 3
in this age range. Indeed, hot and cool forms of EF are thought to through 5 who had not yet entered kindergarten at the time
follow distinct but related trajectories in middle childhood (19), of assessment. Non-inclusion criteria were if mothers had less
but it remains unclear the degree to which successful food DoG than half-time custody of the child, had a history of significant
is associated with measures of cool EF earlier in childhood. neurological disorder(s), or were taking medication that affects
cognitive function; if the child had a developmental delay,
Delay of Gratification in Context sensory impairment, or the mother believed the child could
Ecological systems models stress the importance of interactions not participate in the study successfully; or if the family was
between biological and environmental factors in explaining involved with child welfare services or reported that their
development (22). To this end, a large body of literature primary language was not English. All study procedures were
demonstrates the effect that the family environment has on EC approved by the University’s Committee for the Protection of
and EF development [e.g., (23–26)], as well as on food DoG [e.g., Human Subjects.
(3, 27)]. Indeed, this literature suggests that the resources and
stressors in the child’s environment have a meaningful effect on
DoG development. However, there are relatively few places in
TABLE 1 | Demographic information.
the literature presenting simple associations between different
aspects of family environment and multiple measures of food Demographics M (SD) %
DoG in preschool-aged children. The present data set provides
us with the opportunity to address this gap in the literature. Child demographics
In the literature on environmental influences on the Age (years) 4.05 (0.76)
development of food DoG, several candidate measures emerge. FemaleRace or Ethnicity 49%
First, socioeconomic status (SES) is positively associated with
White 87.23%
better performance on DoG tasks [e.g., (3, 28)] and other
Asian 2.13%
measures of food-related self-regulation [e.g., (29)]. As such,
both family income andmaternal education—commonmeasures Hispanic 0%
of SES—should positively correlate with delay time. Second, Multiracial 8.51%
environmental stressors beyond low SES are also associated with Native American/Indian 2.13%
the development of EF and DoG (1, 30, 31). Two measures of Preschool attendance 61.7%
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 2 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
This study presents data from 88 children ages 3–6 (M age scored >90% on the fish stimuli. The NIH Toolbox uses a two-
= 4.05, SD = 0.76; Table 1). These data are from a larger study vector method to compute performance, which incorporated
designed to investigate self-regulation in parents and children, both accuracy and reaction time for participants who maintained
parent-child interactions, parent feeding practices, and child a high level of accuracy (>80% correct), and accuracy only for
eating behavior. Data from this sample have been described in those who did not meet this criterion. This computed score was
Giuliani and Kelly (41) and Giuliani et al. (40). used to represent performance (40). This task has a 7–21 day
test-retest reliability of 0.89 (44).
Protocol
Mothers and children came into the laboratory for a roughly Go/NoGo Tasks
3-h visit consisting of video-recorded parent-child interactions, Two GNG tasks were administered to children. First, children
mother-completed surveys, and child assessments. Measures performed the Zoo Game (45). The task asks children to help a
relevant to the present analyses are described below. Families zookeeper put animals back in their cages by pressing a button
were paid $60 for their time. as quickly as they can [Go (G) trials], unless they see the monkey
helping the zookeeper [NoGo (NG) trials]. It begins with three
practice blocks in which children can practice (1) pressing the
Measures
laptop button when they see an animal, (2) pressing the button
Food Delay of Gratification Tasks within a certain time limit, and (3) inhibiting their response
Snack Delay Task when they see the monkey. Feedback at the end of each trial
In this task (40, 41), children were asked to choose a preferred presented children with a smiling face if they correctly withheld
snack (choices: fruit snacks, M&Ms, goldfish crackers). The their response on NG trials and a mad face if they either pressed
experimenter placed the snack on a napkin in front of the child the button on NG trials or did not press the button on G
and asked them to wait until the experimenter rang a bell before trials. Each trial consisted of a 500–700ms jittered fixation cross,
retrieving it. The child was then told that they would receive a 1200ms stimulus presentation, 500ms black screen, and 1,000ms
second snack if they were able to wait until the bell was rung. feedback. Responses could be made while the stimulus was on
Four trials were conducted, where the child had to wait 30, 60, screen or at any point during the following 500ms. A total of 90
120, and 180 s for the bell to ring. Halfway through each trial, trials were completed, 25% of which were NG. Percent correct
the experimenter picked up the bell as if they were about to ring was calculated across both types of trials. Two-to-four week
it. For each trial, the child was given a score representing waiting test-retest reliability of a similar task was 0.58 (46).
behavior: 0 (eats snack before bell is lifted), 1 (eats snack after bell We also asked children to complete the Fish GNG Task from
is lifted), 2 (touches bell/snack before bell is lifted), 3 (touches the Early Years Toolbox (47). The task asks children to respond
bell/snack after bell is lifted), or 4 (waits for bell to ring before to G trials (“catch fish,” 80%) and withhold responding on NG
touching snack/bell). The final score was the average score over trials (“avoid sharks,” 20%). The task begins with go instructions
four trials, such that a child with an average score of 0 ate the followed by 5 practice G trials, NoGo instructions followed by
snack before the bell was lifted for all trials, and a child with an 5 practice NG trials, combined GNG instructions followed by
average score of 4 waited until the bell was rung for all trials. This a mixed block of 10 practice trials (80% G), and a recap of
task has a 1–2 week test-retest reliability of 0.5 (42). instructions prior to the task commencing. Auditory feedback
was provided on all practice trials. The task itself did not contain
Tongue Task feedback, and was comprised of 75 stimuli over three blocks.
As in the Snack Delay Task, the Tongue Task started with the Stimuli were presented in pseudo-random order, such that a
child choosing a preferred snack. The child was then asked to block never began with a NG stimulus and no more than two
place the snack on their tongue, and were told to wait until a bell successive trials were NG stimuli, separated by a 1,000ms inter-
was rung to eat it. Four trials were administered (10, 20, 30, 15 s), stimulus-interval. Percent correct was calculated across both
and coded to reflect the length of time before the child ate the types of trials. Due to computer error, data from 15 participants
snack. The final score was the average score across the four trials. were not recorded. The split-half reliability of this task was 0.84
Preschool-aged Fall-Spring academic year test-retest reliability as in the original validation sample (47).
part of a larger hot EF composite was estimated at 0.58 (43). We originally planned on combining across the two GNG
tasks in previous analyses using these data (40). However,
Cognitive Tasks the relatively modest correlation between the two tasks (r =
Flanker Task 0.44, p < 0.001) suggests that they may index related but
The Flanker Task was administered via the NIH Toolbox (44). separate processes. Therefore, we opted to consider the two
Children were presented with a stimulus on the center of a tablet tasks separately.
screen and were required to indicate the left-right orientation
while inhibiting attention to the stimuli flanking it. On some Day/Night Stroop Task
trials the orientation of the flankers was congruent with the In this task (16), the child was shown a total of 16 pictures
orientation of the central stimulus and on the other trials the in a random sequence that depict either a moon on a dark
flankers were incongruent. The test consisted of a block of 20 fish background or a sun on a white background. When the child was
trials and a block of 20 arrow trials, shown only if the participant shown the picture of the sun or moon, they were instructed to
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 3 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
say the opposite time of day. For instance, if the child was shown also administered the Child Behavior Questionnaire–Very Short
a picture of the sun, they should have said “night.” The total Form [CBQ-VSF; (56)], fromwhich we used the Effortful Control
number of correct responses was recorded, and percent correct (EC) subscale (α = 0.64).
was calculated. This task has a 2-week test-retest reliability of Mothers also completed the Center for Epidemiological
0.84 (48). Studies Depression [CESD; (57)] scale (α = 0.91) and a modified
version of the Coddington Life Events Questionnaire (58) to
Balance Beam Task report their depressive symptoms and their child’s negative life
In this task (49), which is sometimes called “Walk-a-Line-Slowly,” events in the past year, respectively.
a 12 ft piece of tape was placed on the floor. The child was
instructed to walk along the tape, once at regular speed, and twice Analyses
slowly. This experimenter recorded and coded the times for each
For all variables, outliers were Winsorized (59) at 3 standard
trial in seconds. Difference scores between the average of the two
deviations from the mean (noted in Table 2) and then assessed
slow times and the regular time was calculated. This task has a
for skew and kurtosis. Gross family income; maternal depressive
Fall-Spring academic year test-retest reliability of 0.42 (43).
symptoms; performance on the Snack Delay, Tongue, Zoo
Tower Task Go/NoGo, Flanker, Day/Night Stroop, Balance Beam, Tower,
In this task (50), the child was asked to take turns with the and HTKS Tasks; and child negative life events in the past year
experimenter in building a tower. Twenty wooden blocks were were identified as non-normally distributed (skewness and/or
used, with 10 blocks allocated to each person. The experimenter kurtosis>±1). To maximize sample size and statistical variance,
deliberately waited to place their block until the child explicitly we opted to retain Winsorized values and use non-parametric
signaled that they were giving a turn. The child earned 1 point statistical tests that did not assume normality. Analyses of both
for each time they appropriately gave a turn to the experimenter. the raw data and the data with outlier cases removed did not
If the child gave the experimenter all their due turns, the child meaningfully change the results, indicating that extreme but
earned up to 10 points. The child could also gain one point for plausible values did not drive the study’s findings.
arranging the tower to prevent it from collapsing, and for waiting All analyses were run using R (60). For both aims, associations
10 s after placing their block even if they did not explicitly signal were measured using Spearman’s correlations. All analyses were
that they were giving a turn to the experimenter. Points were adjusted for multiple tests by hypothesis, using the Benjamini-
summed to create a final score for this task. This task has a 1–2 Hochberg correction (53); adjusted p-values are presented.
week test-retest reliability of 0.85 (42). Correlations were also disattenuated to account for varying
measure reliability using the reliability estimates provided in the
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulder Task measures descriptions above (61). Formal comparisons of the
In this task (51), children were provided with paired behavioral strength of the correlations values were evaluated using https://
rules (e.g., touch your head/touch your toes) and then asked to do www.psychometrica.de/ (62).
the opposite. First, the child completed 10 trials where they were
asked to touch their head or their toes. If the child responded RESULTS
correctly to 5 or more items, then the second set of paired rules
(touch your shoulders/touch your knees) was introduced. If the Descriptive statistics for task variables and measures of family
child produced the correct response immediately, the item was environment are presented in Table 2.
scored 2. If the child self-corrected without prompting, the item
was scored 1. If they did not touch the correct part of their body,
Zero-Order Associations
the item was scored 0; all points summed to create a final score.
After adjusting for multiple comparisons, zero-order correlations
This task has a Fall-Spring academic year test-retest reliability of
(Table 3) revealed that performance on the Snack Delay and
0.6 in a pre-kindergarten sample (52).
Tongue DoG Tasks was significantly positively correlated, r(85)
Family Demographics = 0.43, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.24, 0.59]. Both DoG tasks
Mothers were asked to report the birth date, sex, race, and were significantly positively correlated with performance on the
ethnicity of their child. From that, age was calculated as the Flanker, Fish GNG, Day/Night Stroop, Tower, and HTKS Tasks
number of days between the child’s birth and the session date, (r-values: 0.25–0.54, p-values < 0.05, see Table 3 for 95% CIs).
divided by 365.25. Mothers also reported the gross family income For the Zoo GNG and Balance Beam Tasks, only the Tongue
in US$ and her highest level of educational attainment by degree. Task was significantly correlated (r-values: 0.29–0.36, p-values
Degree earned was then transformed into years of education, < 0.05, see Table 3 for 95% CIs). With regard to the mother-
where high school diploma or GED = 12, Associate = 14, report surveys, only the DECA SR subscale and Snack Delay Task
Bachelor’s= 16, Master’s= 18, and Doctoral= 22. were significantly correlated, r(87) = 0.26, p= 0.03, 95% CI [0.05,
0.44]. Direct comparisons of the associations between each of
Mother-Report Surveys the cognitive variables and the food DoG tasks revealed that the
Mothers completed the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment associations were stronger between the Tongue Task and the Zoo
for Preschoolers–Second Edition [DECA; (55)], from which GNG, Balance Beam, HTKS, and CBQ-VSF EC compared to the
we used the Self-Regulation (SR) subscale (α = 0.87). We Snack Delay Task and each of those measures (p-values < 0.05).
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 4 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
TABLE 2 | Descriptive data of self-regulation and family environment variables.
Variable N M SD Observed Range
Snack delay task 88 2.01 1.66 0–4.00
Tongue task 85 15.65 5.66 0.63–18.75
Flanker task 81 2.52 1.91 0–7.06
Fish Go/NoGo task* 66 0.66 0.17 0.01–1.00
Zoo Go/NoGo task* 83 51.68 14.39 8.22–68.24
Day/Night stroop task 83 65.29 34.72 0–100.00
Balance beam task* 88 3.04 4.91 −5–21.57
Tower task 86 6.57 3.60 0–10.00
HTKS task 82 19.43 18.67 0–52.00
CBQ-VSF EC subscale 87 5.36 0.64 4–6.58
DECA SR subscale* 87 33.56 4.57 18–45.00
Gross family income (US$) 86 69,329.00 48,754.00 0–260,000.00
Maternal years of education 88 15.15 2.47 8–22.00
Maternal depression symptoms (CES-D) 88 9.67 8.80 0–38.00
Child negative events–past year (CLEQ) 87 2.31 2.24 0–10.00
HTKS, Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders Task; CBQ-VSF EC, Child Behavior Questionnaire (Very Short Form) Effortful Control subscale; DECA SR, Devereux Early Childhood Assessment
Self-Regulation subscale; CES-D, Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scale; CLEQ, Coddington Life Events Questionnaire. * indicates variable Winsorized at 3 standard
deviations from the mean for analyses; uncorrected values are presented here.
After disattenuating the correlations to account for measure a significant association between child negative life events and
reliability, the correlation between the Snack Delay and Tongue Tongue Task performance (p > 0.05), nor were there significant
Tasks increased from 0.43 to 0.80, 95% CI [0.70, 0.86]. All associations between mother-reported depressive symptoms and
correlations between laboratory measures were significant at performance on either task (p-values > 0.05). The association
p < 0.05. The pattern of significant correlations between the between child negative life events and Snack Delay performance
laboratory and mother-report surveys remained the same. Lastly, were significantly stronger than the association with Tongue Task
direct comparisons of the associations between each cognitive performance (p-values < 0.001).
variable and the two food DoG tasks showed that the correlations
between the cognitive measures and the Tongue Task were all DISCUSSION
significantly stronger than those between the cognitive measures
and the Snack Delay Task. The purpose of the present study was to present associations
among two commonly-used measures of food DoG and an array
Associations Between DoG Tasks and of cognitive measures in a community sample of preschool-
Family Environment aged children, and explore the degree to which food DoG was
After adjusting for multiple comparisons, family income was associated with four measures family environment thought to
significantly positively associated with performance on the play a role in DoG development.
Tongue Task, r(83) = 0.40, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.20, 0.56]
(Table 4). Children from families with higher yearly gross Food DoG and Cognitive Measures
incomes performed better on the Tongue Task. The positive Performance on both food DoG tasks was significantly positively
association between family income and Snack Delay Task associated with performance on the cognitive tasks in this data
performance was not statistically significant (p = 0.0501). set. Like most tasks used to assess EC and EF, tasks used in
Maternal years of education was not significantly associated with the current study suffer from task impurity, in that successful
performance on either food DoG task (Snack Delay Task: p performance is dependent on multiple cognitive processes (63,
= 0.27; Tongue Task: p = 0.0501). The associations between 64). However, while EF is broadly implicated in eating behavior
SES measures and Tongue Task performance were significantly in young children [e.g., (9)], previous analyses on the present
stronger than those between SES measures and Snack Delay Task sample directly compared the degree to which food DoG (Snack
performance (p-values < 0.05). Delay), attentional control (Flanker) and inhibitory control
Child negative life events in the past year was significantly (GNG) predicted later EAH. Here, we found that only food DoG
negatively associated with performance on the Snack Delay Task, significantly predicted later EAH (41), indicating that this hot EF
r(87) = −0.29, p = 0.019, 95% CI [-0.47,−0.09], such that measure may better capture the food-related regulatory processes
children who experienced more recent negative life events did recruited when making food choices in the absence of hunger.
not wait as long for the second snack as compared to children Compared to the laboratory assessments, the two mother-
who had experienced fewer negative life events. There was not report measures showed a different pattern. Even after
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 5 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 6 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
TABLE 3 | Correlations among self-regulation variables.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Snack Delay 0.80 0.41 0.48 0.37 0.49 0.37 0.58 0.45 [0.26, 0.14 0.39
[0.70, 0.86] [0.21, 0.58] [0.27, 0.65] [0.16, 0.54] [0.31, 0.64] [0.41, 0.70] 0.61] [-0.07, 0.34] [0.19, 0.55]
[0.17, 0.54]
2. Tongue 0.43** 0.67 0.77 0.50 0.72 0.73 0.69 0.91 0.31 0.18
[0.24, 0.59] [0.53, 0.78] [0.65, 0.86] [0.32, 0.65] [0.60, 0.81] [0.61, 0.81] [0.56, 0.79] [0.86, 0.94] [0.10, 0.49] [-0.04, 0.38]
3. Flanker 0.27* 0.48** 0.66 0.84 0.56 0.92 0.52 0.83 0.12 0.00
[0.06, 0.46] [0.29, 0.64] [0.49, 0.78] [0.76, 0.89] [0.39, 0.70] [0.88, 0.95] [0.34, 0.67] [0.74, 0.89] [-0.10, 0.33] [-0.22, 0.22]
4. Fish Go/NoGo 0.31* 0.54** 0.57** 0.75 0.60 0.69 0.53 0.67 −0.24 0.05
[0.08, 0.52] [0.34, 0.69] [0.37, 0.72] [0.62, 0.84] [0.42, 0.74] [0.53, 0.80] [0.32, 0.68] [0.50, 0.78] [-0.46, 0.00] [-0.20, 0.29]
5. Zoo Go/NoGo 0.20 0.29* 0.60** 0.52** 0.63 0.69 0.52 0.95 0.03 0.09
[-0.02, 0.40] [0.08, 0.48] [0.44, 0.73] [0.32, 0.68 ] [0.48, 0.75] [0.55, 0.78] [0.34, 0.66] [0.92, 0.97] [-0.19, 0.25] [-0.13, 0.30]
6. Day/Night 0.32* 0.51** 0.48** 0.51** 0.44** 0.95 0.53 0.79 0.05 0.16
[0.11, 0.50] [0.32, 0.65] [0.29, 0.64] [0.30, 0.67] [0.24, 0.60] [0.92, 0.96] [0.36, 0.67] [0.70, 0.86] [-0.17, 0.27] [-0.06, 0.36]
7. Balance Beam 0.17 0.36** 0.56** 0.41** 0.34** 0.56** 0.69 0.85 −0.05 0.11
[-0.04, 0.37] [0.16, 0.53] [0.39, 0.70] [0.18, 0.59] [0.13, 0.52] [0.39, 0.69] [0.56, 0.79] [0.77, 0.90] [-0.26, 0.16] [-0.11, 0.31]
8. Tower 0.37** 0.48** 0.46** 0.44** 0.37** 0.45** 0.41** 0.76 [0.64, 0.05 0.24
[0.18, 0.54] [0.30, 0.63] [0.26, 0.61] [0.22, 0.62] [0.16, 0.54] [0.26, 0.61] [0.22, 0.57] 0.84] [-0.16, 0.26] [0.03, 0.43]
9. HTKS 0.25* 0.53** 0.60** 0.47** 0.56** 0.56** 0.43** 0.54** 0.05 -0.03
[0.03, 0.44] [0.35, 0.67] [0.44, 0.73] [0.26, 0.64] [0.38, 0.69] [0.39, 0.69] [0.23, 0.59] [0.37, 0.68] [-0.17, 0.27] [-0.25, 0.19]
10. CBQ-VSF EC 0.08 0.19 0.09 −0.18 0.02 0.04 -0.03 0.04 0.03 0.51
[-0.13, 0.29] [-0.03, 0.39] [-0.12, 0.31] [-0.40, 0.07] [-0.20, 0.24] [-0.18, 0.25] [-0.24, 0.18] [-0.18, 0.25] [-0.19, 0.25] [0.33, 0.65]
11. DECA SR 0.26* 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.21 -0.02 0.38**
[0.05, 0.44] [-0.09, 0.33] [-0.22, 0.22] [-0.2, 0.28] [-0.16, 0.28] [-0.08, 0.34] [-0.15, 0.27] [-0.01, 0.40] [-0.24, 0.20] [ 0.18, 0.54]
Statistics below the diagonal are Spearman correlations with 95% confidence intervals shown in brackets. Significance tests are corrected for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg (53) method. Statistics above the
diagonal show disattenuated correlations with 95% confidence intervals in brackets. Correlations were disattenuated using the following reliability estimates: Snack Delay, 0.55 (42); Tongue Task, 0.58 (54); Flanker Task, 0.89 (44); Fish
Go/NoGo, 0.84 (47); Zoo Go/NoGo, 0.58 (46); Day/Night Task, 0.84 (48); Balance Beam Task, 0.42 (43); Tower Task, 0.85 (42); HTKS Task, 0.6 (52); CBQ-VSF EC, 0.64 (present sample); and DECA SR, 0.87 (present sample). HTKS,
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders Task. CBQ-VSF EC, Child Behavior Questionnaire (Very Short Form) Effortful Control subscale. DECA SR, Devereaux Early Childhood Assessment Self-Regulation subscale. **p < 0.001. *p < 0.05.
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
TABLE 4 | Correlations between measures of delay of gratification and family environment.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Snack delay task
2. Tongue task 0.43** [0.24, 0.59]
3. Family income ($) 0.23 [0.02, 0.42] 0.40**[0.20, 0.56]
4. Maternal education (years) 0.12 [-0.09, 0.33] 0.24[0.03, 0.43] 0.58** [0.42, 0.70]
5. Maternal depression (CES-D total) -0.15 [-0.35, 0.05] −0.19[-0.39, 0.02] -0.29* [-0.47,−0.08] −0.16[-0.36, 0.06]
6. Child negative life events in past year (CLEQ) -0.29* [-0.48,−0.09] 0.00[-0.21, 0.21] -0.28* [-0.47,−0.08] −0.23[-0.42,−0.02] 0.28* [0.07, 0.47]
Statistics are Spearman correlations with 95% confidence intervals shown in brackets. CES-D, Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression; CLEQ, Coddington Life Events
Questionnaire. All p-values corrected for multiple comparisons using the procedure of Benjamini-Hochberg (53). **p < 0.001. *p < 0.05.
disattenuating the correlations to account for measure reliability, the Snack Delay Task, such that more negative life events were
we found that the CBQ-VSF EC subscale positively correlated associated with shorter delay time. This is consistent with Life
with performance on the Tongue Task only, whereas the DECA History Theory, where a lower sense of control is associated with
SR subscale was positively correlated with the Snack Delay Task a decreased willingness to delay gratification (67). While a sense
and the Tower Task. The two mother-report measures were of control can vary by person and situation, it may be that a large
positively correlated with each other, a pattern that suggests number of recent negative life events imparts a general sense
some common method variance. This may be due to known low of uncontrollability for a young child, thus motivating them to
levels of convergence between survey and behavioral measures choose the sooner, more certain reward.
of EF, which could indicate that the types of assessments reflect
different underlying mechanisms, or could be simply due to the Limitations, Conclusions, and Future
differing method of measurement [e.g., (29, 65)]. Regardless, Directions
the finding that mother-reported EC was positively correlated In addition to the ones listed above, this study had several
with Tongue Task performance and mother-reported SR [which limitations. First, this data set did not include measures of
includes EF; see (66)], suggests that the two food DoG tasks working memory or non-food DoG, which would help us better
may vary slightly in their underlying cognitive bases—with the understand the extent to which these results capture EF and
Tongue Task relying more on EC and the Snack Delay relying DoG more generally. Second, recent work has shown that the
more on EF. However, this remains to be tested empirically. use of reaction time differences as measures of Flanker Task
performance can be unreliable (70), and as such these results
Food DoG and Family Environment should be interpreted with caution. Third, this was a relatively
Our investigations into how the food DoG tasks were associated racially-homogeneous, low-risk, community sample of families;
with measures of family environment were mostly consistent as such, these data may not be generalizable to other samples.
with the extant literature. First, the overall qualitative pattern While we did have reasonable variance in our measures of family
showed positive associations between measures of family SES environment, children raised in higher-risk environments may
(i.e., income, maternal education) and food DoG. This is in line show different associations between those measures and food
with research showing that individuals who have more resource DoG. Fourth, we observed differences in the pattern of significant
certainty perform better on DoG tasks (28, 67). Of the four findings for the two GNG Tasks, which may be because the
correlations, the only one that rose to the level of significance Zoo version employs a greater variety of stimuli than the Fish
was the association between family income and performance on version and thus requires more working memory (71). Lastly,
the Tongue Task. This may be due to the increased temptation we did not include any measures of observed parenting behavior
of holding a desired treat on one’s tongue in the Tongue Task, as in these analyses, which would be useful with regard to better
opposed to simply looking at it as is done in the Snack Delay. understanding how food DoG relates to environmental context.
Second, with regard to measures of environmental stress, These findings are meaningful to the literature in two ways.
negative associations between maternal depression and food First, the patterns of associations between food DoG and the
DoG were not significant. While in the same direction as cognitive measures in this study inform the ongoing discussion
the empirical and theoretical literature stating that maternal on how to situate DoG in the family of related constructs. Our
depression predicts poorer child food DoG [e.g., (37, 68)], the results suggest that, compared to the more popular Snack Delay
non-significant association seen in the present data may be due to Task, the Tongue Task may be a better way to measure hot EF
the fact that we used a low-risk, community sample. Specifically, in the context of food DoG, as it is more consistently correlated
the CES-D ranges from 0 to 60, with a clinical cutoff of 16 with performance on non-food cognitive tasks. However, future
(69). Our sample ranged from 0 to 38, with a mean of 9.67. work using tasks that more clearly recruit separate cognitive
Indeed, only 19 of the 87 mothers scored 16 or above on the processes [e.g., working memory, cognitive flexibility, behavioral
CES-D. We did see, however, a significant negative correlation inhibition; (64)] is needed to determine the degree to which
between recent child negative life events and performance on different food DoG tasks rely on separate underlying cognitive
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 7 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
constructs. Second, the present findings support and add to the Oregon. Written informed consent to participate in this study
literature on environmental influences on DoG development. was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
Specifically, we found that family income and child negative life
events are meaningfully associated with food DoG, in directions AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
that are consistent with the literature. These results stress the
role that childhood resource certainty and controllability may NG and NK designed the study, edited drafts, and approved the
have on the development of DoG. Taken together, these results final version. NG collected and analyzed the data and wrote the
demonstrate the degree to which an array of common cognitive manuscript. Both authors contributed to the article and approved
measures are associated with food DoG, the development of the submitted version.
which may be meaningfully affected by specific aspects of
family environment. FUNDING
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT This study was funded by an Early Career Research Award
from the Society for the Study of School Psychology
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online to NG.
repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and
accession number(s) can be found below: https://osf.io/dfmhe/. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ETHICS STATEMENT The authors are grateful to the students from the Giuliani Lab
who helped gather these data, the families who participated in
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and this research, Derek Kosty, and our colleagues at the Prevention
approved by Institutional Review Board of the University of Science Institute.
REFERENCES 12. de Water E, Krueger AM, Lindgren CW, Fuglestad AJ, Rockhold MN,
Sandness KE, et al. Early delay of gratification predicts later inhibitory control
1. Metcalfe J, Mischel W. A hot/cool-system analysis of delay and academic performance in children with prenatal alcohol exposure. Child
of gratification: dynamics of willpower. Psychol Rev. (1999) Neuropsychol. (2021) 27:109–24. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2020.1798372
106:3–19. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3 13. Hongwanishkul D, Happaney KR, Lee WSC, Zelazo PD. Assessment
2. Russell CG, Russell A. “food” and “non-food” self-regulation in childhood: of hot and cool executive function in young children: Age-related
a review and reciprocal analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. (2020) changes and individual differences. Dev Neuropsychol. (2005) 28:617–44.
17:33. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00928-5 doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2802_4
3. Watts TW, Duncan GJ, Quan H. Revisiting the marshmallow 14. Schlam TR, Wilson NL, Shoda Y, Mischel W, Ayduk O. Preschoolers’ delay
test: a conceptual replication investigating links between early of gratification predicts their body mass 30 years later. J Pediatr. (2013)
delay of gratification and later outcomes. Psychol Sci. (2018) 162:90–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.06.049
29:1159–77. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661 15. Lin B, Liew J, Perez M. Measurement of self-regulation in early childhood:
4. Mischel W, Shoda Y, Rodriguez MI. Delay of gratification in children. Science. Relations between laboratory and performance-based measures of effortful
(1989) 244:933–8. doi: 10.1126/science.2658056 control and executive functioning. Early Child Res Q. (2019) 47:1–
5. Russell A, Russell CG. Appetite self-regulation declines across childhood 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.10.004
while general self-regulation improves: a narrative review of the 16. Gerstadt CL, Hong YJ, Diamond A. The relationship between cognition and
origins and development of appetite self-regulation. Appetite. (2021) action: performance of children 3.5-7 years old on a stroop- like day-night
162:105178. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105178 test. Cognition. (1994) 53:129–53. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-X
6. Brock LL, Rimm-Kaufman SE, Nathanson L, Grimm KJ. The contributions 17. Lengua LJ, Honorado E, Bush NR. Contextual risk and parenting as predictors
of “hot” and “cool” executive function to children’s academic achievement, of effortful control and social competence in preschool children. J Appl Dev
learning-related behaviors, and engagement in kindergarten. Early Child Res Psychol. (2007) 28:40–55. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.10.001
Q. (2009) 24:337–49. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.06.001 18. Zelazo PD, Carlson SM. Hot and cool executive function in childhood and
7. Mischel W, Ayduk O. Self-regulation in a cognitive–affective personality adolescence: development and plasticity. Child Dev Perspect. (2012) 6:354–
system: attentional control in the service of the self. Self Identity. (2002) 60. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00246.x
1:113–20. doi: 10.1080/152988602317319285 19. Fernández García L, Merchán A, Phillips-Silver J, Daza González MT.
8. Mischel W, Shoda Y. A cognitive-affective system theory of Neuropsychological development of cool and hot executive functions
personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, between 6 and 12 years of age: a systematic review. Front Psychol. (2021)
and invariance in personality structure. Psychol Rev. (1995) 12:687337. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.687337
102:246–68. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246 20. Szcześniewska P, Hanć T, Bryl E, Dutkiewicz A, Borkowska AR, Paszyńska
9. Tan CC, Lumeng JC. Associations between cool and hot executive E, et al. Do hot executive functions relate to bmi and body composition
functions and children’s eating behavior. Curr Nutr Rep. (2018) 7:21– in school age children? Brain Sci. (2021) 11:780. doi: 10.3390/brainsci1
8. doi: 10.1007/s13668-018-0224-3 1060780
10. Allan NP, Lonigan CJ. Exploring dimensionality of effortful control using hot 21. Miller AL, Rosenblum KL, Retzloff LB, Lumeng JC. Observed self-regulation
and cool tasks in a sample of preschool children. J Exp Child Psychol. (2014) is associated with weight in low-income toddlers. Appetite. (2016) 105:705–
122:33–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.013 12. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.007
11. Kochanska G, Murray KT, Harlan ET. Effortful control in early childhood: 22. Bronfenbrenner U, Ceci SJ. Nature-nurture reconceptualized in
continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. developmental perspective: a bioecological model. Psychol Rev. (1994)
Dev Psychol. (2000) 36:22–32. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220 101:568–86. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 8 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
23. Hackman DA, Gallop R, Evans GW, Farah MJ. Socioeconomic status and function measures in adults. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. (2014) 20:620–
executive function: developmental trajectories and mediation. Dev Sci. (2015) 9. doi: 10.1017/S1355617714000472
18:686–702. doi: 10.1111/desc.12246 45. Grammer JK, Carrasco M, Gehring WJ, Morrison FJ. Age-related changes in
24. Lengua LJ. Poverty, the development of effortful control, and children’s error processing in young children: a school-based investigation. Dev Cogn
academic, social, and emotional adjustment. In The Oxford Handbook of Neurosci. (2014) 9:93–105. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2014.02.001
Poverty and Child Development. (2012). doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/97801997691 46. Willoughby M, Blair C. Test-retest reliability of a new executive function
00.013.0028 battery for use in early childhood. Child Neuropsychology. (2011) 17:564–
25. Merz EC, Wiltshire CA, Noble KG. Socioeconomic inequality and the 79. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2011.554390
developing brain: spotlight on language and executive function. Child Dev 47. Howard SJ, Okely AD. Catching fish and avoiding sharks. J Psychoeduc Assess.
Perspect. (2019) 13:15–20. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12305 (2015) 33:585-96. doi: 10.1177/0734282914562933
26. Oh Y, Joung YS, Baek J, Yoo NH. Maternal depression trajectories and 48. Thorell LB, Wåhlstedt C. Executive functioning deficits in relation to
child executive function over 9 years. J Affect Disord. (2020) 276:646– symptoms of ADHD and/or ODD in preschool children. Infant Child Dev.
52. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.07.065 (2006) 15:503–18. doi: 10.1002/icd.475
27. Evans GW, English K. The environment of poverty: multiple 49. Murray KT, Kochanska G. Effortful control: factor structure and relation
stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional to externalizing and internalizing behaviors. J Abnorm Child Psychol. (2002)
adjustment. Child Dev. (2002) 73:1238–48. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624. 30:503–14. doi: 10.1023/A:1019821031523
00469 50. Kochanska G, Murray KT, Jacques TY, Koenig AL, Vandegeest KA. Inhibitory
28. Evans GW, Rosenbaum J. Self-regulation and the income-achievement gap. control in young children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Dev.
Early Child Res Q. (2008) 23:504–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.07.002 (1996) 67:490–507. doi: 10.2307/1131828
29. Hughes SO, Power TG, O’Connor TM, Fisher JO. Executive functioning, 51. Ponitz CC, McClelland MM, Matthews JS, Morrison FJ. A structured
emotion regulation, eating self-regulation, and weight status in low- observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten
income preschool children: How do they relate? Appetite. (2015) 89:1– outcomes. Dev Psychol. (2009) 45:605–19. doi: 10.1037/a0015365
9. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.009 52. McClelland MM, Cameron CE, Duncan R, Bowles RP, Acock AC, Miao A, et
30. Evans GW, Kim P. Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self-regulation, and al. Predictors of early growth in academic achievement: The head-toes-knees-
coping. Child Dev Perspect. (2013) 7:43–8. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12013 shoulders task. Front Psychol. (2014) 5:599. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00599
31. Fields SA, Lange K, Ramos A, Thamotharan S, Rassu F. The relationship 53. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical
between stress and delay discounting: a meta-analytic review. Behav and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc Series B. (1995)
Pharmacol. (2014) 25:434–44. doi: 10.1097/FBP.0000000000000044 57:289–300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
32. Audelo J, Kogut K, Harley KG, Rosas LG, Stein L, Eskenazi B. Maternal 54. Denham SA, Bassett HH, Zinsser K. Early childhood teachers as socializers of
depression and childhood overweight in the CHAMACOS study of young children’s emotional competence. Early Child Educ J. (2012) 40:137–
Mexican-American children. Matern Child Health J. (2016) 20:1405– 43. doi: 10.1007/s10643-012-0504-2
14. doi: 10.1007/s10995-016-1937-9 55. LeBuffe PA, Naglieri JA. The devereux early childhood assessment (DECA):
33. Duarte CS, Shen S, Wu P, Must A. Maternal depression and child BMI: a measure of within-child protective factors in preschool children. NHSA
longitudinal findings from a US sample. Pediatr Obes. (2012) 7:124– Dialog. (1999) 3:75–80. doi: 10.1207/s19309325nhsa0301_10
33. doi: 10.1111/j.2047-6310.2011.00012.x 56. Putnam SP, Rothbart MK. Development of short and very short forms
34. Lumeng JC, Wendorf K, Pesch MH, Appugliese DP, Kaciroti N, Corwyn RF, of the children’s behavior questionnaire. J Pers Assess. (2006) 87:102–
et al. Overweight adolescents and life events in childhood. Pediatrics. (2013) 12. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa,8701_09
132:e1506–12. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-1111 57. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for
35. McCurdy K, Tovar A, Kaar JL, Vadiveloo M. Pathways between maternal research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. (1977)
depression, the family environment, and child BMI z scores. Appetite. (2019) 1:385–401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306
134:148–54. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.010 58. Coddington RD. The significance of life events as etiologic factors in the
36. Stoeckel LE, Birch LL, Heatherton T, Mann T, Hunter C, Czajkowski S, et diseases of children-II a study of a normal population. J Psychosom Res. (1972)
al. Psychological and neural contributions to appetite self-regulation. Obesity. 16:205–13. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(72)90045-1
(2017) 25:S17–25. doi: 10.1002/oby.21789 59. Sullivan JH, Warkentin M, Wallace L. So many ways for assessing
37. Razza RA, Raymond K. Associations among maternal behavior, delay of outliers: what really works and does it matter? J Bus Res. (2021) 132:530–
gratification, and school readiness across the early childhood years. Soc Dev. 43. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.066
(2013) 22:180–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00665.x 60. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
38. Matsuyama Y, Fujiwara T, Sawada Y, Yagi J, Mashiko H, Kawachi I. Foundation for Statistical Computing (2019). Available online at: https://
Delay discounting in children exposed to disaster. PLoS ONE. (2020) www.r-project.org/
15:e0243994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243994 61. Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things.
39. Mittal C, Griskevicius V. Sense of control under uncertainty depends on Am J Psychol. (1904) 15:72–101. doi: 10.2307/1412159
people’s childhood environment: a life history theory approach. J Pers Soc 62. Eid M, Gollwitzer M, Schmitt M. Statistik und Forschungsmethoden Lehrbuch.
Psychol. (2014) 107:621–37. doi: 10.1037/a0037398 Beltz (2011).
40. Giuliani NR, Harrington EM, Trevino SD. Intergenerational 63. Anderson PJ, Reidy N. Assessing executive function in preschoolers.
transmission of appetite self-regulation. J Appl Dev Psychol. (2021) Neuropsychol Rev. (2012) 22:345–60. doi: 10.1007/s11065-012-9220-3
76:101330. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101330 64. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki a H, Howerter A, Wager TD.
41. Giuliani NR, Kelly NR. Delay of gratification predicts eating in the The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to
absence of hunger in preschool-aged children. Front Psychol. (2021) complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. (2000)
12:650046. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.650046 41:49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
42. Floyd RG, Kirby EA. Psychometric properties of measures of 65. Demidenko MI, Huntley ED, Martz ME, Keating DP. Adolescent
behavioral inhibition with preschool-age children: implications for health risk behaviors: convergent, discriminant and predictive validity
assessment of children at risk for ADHD. J Atten Disord. (2001) of self-report and cognitive measures. J Youth Adolesc. (2019)
5:79–91. doi: 10.1177/108705470100500202 48:1765–83. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01057-4
43. Bassett HH, Denham S, Wyatt TM, Warren-Khot HK. Refining the preschool 66. Nigg JT. Annual research review: on the relations among self-regulation,
self-regulation assessment for use in preschool classrooms. Infant Child Dev. self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control,
(2012) 21:596–616. doi: 10.1002/icd.1763 impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology.
44. Zelazo PD, Anderson JE, Richler J, Wallner-Allen K, Beaumont JL, Conway J Child Psychol Psychiatry All Discip. (2017) 58:361–83. doi: 10.1111/jc
KP, et al. NIH toolbox cognition battery (CB): validation of executive pp.12675
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 9 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583
Giuliani and Kelly Food DoG, Cognition, and Environment
67. Griskevicius V, Ackerman JM, Cantú SM,Delton AW, Robertson TE, Simpson Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
JA, et al. When the economy falters, do people spend or save? responses absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychol Sci. (2013) potential conflict of interest.
24:197–205. doi: 10.1177/0956797612451471
68. Bergmeier H, Paxton SJ, Milgrom J, Anderson SE, Baur L, Hill B, et al. Early Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
mother-child dyadic pathways to childhood obesity risk: A conceptual model. and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
Appetite. (2020) 144:104459. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104459 the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
69. Lewinsohn PM, Seeley JR, Roberts RE, Allen NB. Center for epidemiologic
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
studies depression scale (CES-D) as a screening instrument for depression
endorsed by the publisher.
among community-residing older adults. Psychol Aging. (1997) 12:277–
87. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.12.2.277
70. Draheim C, Tsukahara JS, Martin JD, Mashburn CA, Engle RW. A toolbox Copyright © 2022 Giuliani and Kelly. This is an open-access article distributed
approach to improving the measurement of attention control. J Exp Psychol. under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The
(2021) 150:242–75. doi: 10.1037/xge0000783 use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
71. Simmonds DJ, Pekar JJ, Mostofsky SH. Meta-analysis of Go/No- original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia. (2008) No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
46:224–32. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.015 terms.
Frontiers in Nutrition | www.frontiersin.org 10 April 2022 | Volume 9 | Article 788583