Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 3/2023

26-05-2022 | Original Article

Emotions in motion: affective valence can influence compatibility effects with graspable objects

Auteurs: Elisa Scerrati, Sandro Rubichi, Roberto Nicoletti, Cristina Iani

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2023

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Previous studies showed that affective valence (positive, negative) influences Stimulus–Response Compatibility (SRC) effects elicited by both relevant and irrelevant spatial dimensions. We tested whether valence influences SRC effects when the irrelevant spatial dimension rather than being conveyed by the entire stimulus location is conveyed by the location of the stimulus’ graspable part, i.e., the Handle–Response (H–R) compatibility effect. Participants saw objects with either a flower, a spider or nothing on their handle and categorized them as kitchen utensils or garage tools through button presses. In Experiment 1, a random presentation of valenced stimuli was used, whereas in Experiment 2 differently valenced stimuli were arranged in different blocks. Furthermore, participants in Experiment 2 could be spider-fearful or not. In Experiment 1, an H–R compatibility effect occurred for response latencies, regardless of whether stimuli presented a negative, positive or no element on their handle. In Experiment 2 the effect occurred only when a positive element was shown on the object's handle. In addition, spider-fearful individuals showed significantly slower responses when the element appearing on the object's handle had a negative valence. These results suggest that the SRC effect observed with pictures of graspable objects may be sensitive to the affective characteristics of stimuli and that approach/avoidance response tendencies may also depend on individual differences (being spider-fearful or not).
vorige artikel The good, the bad, and the red: implicit color-valence associations across cultures
volgende artikel Is the performance at the implicit association test sensitive to feedback presentation? A Rasch-based analysis
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
Since we did not use any validated questionnaire, the information concerning spider-fear in Experiment 1 is not used in the analysis as no reliable measure of spider-fear was obtained.
 
2
Since several studies showed the importance of manual dominance in S–R compatibility effects (e.g., Song et al., 2017; Fagard & Ittyerah, 2017; Freddi et al., 2016) and given that both experiments involved a fair amount of ambidextrous and left-handed participants (21% and 12% in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively) we tested whether Handedness had an effect on response times by performing a LMM separately for each experiment where Handedness (righ-handed, left-handed, ambidextrous) was added as a fixed effect. Neither experiment showed a main effect of Handedness (p = 0.895 and p = 0.557 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively), nor an interaction between Handedness and H–R compatibility (p = 0.452 and p = 0.284 in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively), indicating that Handedness did not influence response times. In order to test the robustness of the results observed with the full samples of participants, further analyses were conducted for each experiment separately on the sample of right-handed participants alone. Analyses from both experiments confirmed the results obtained with the full samples. Specifically, Experiment 1 (N = 43 right-handed) showed a main effect of H–R compatibility, p < 0.05, with slightly faster response latencies for H–R compatible (M: 626 ms; SE: 14.9) than incompatible (M: 630 ms; SE: 14.9) trials, whereas Experiment 2 (N = 47 right-handed) showed a significant interaction between Affective Valence and H–R compatibility (p = 0.008) with significantly faster H–R compatible (M: 609 ms; SD: 74.87) than incompatible trials (M: 619 ms; SD: 83.20) only when the element appearing on the graspable handle was positive (i.e., flower), t(46) = 2.25, p < 0.05, and a significant interaction between Affective Valence and Group (p < 0.001) with slower mean response times for objects featuring a negative element (M: 633 ms; SD: 111.41) on the graspable handle than objects featuring a positive (M: 620 ms; SD: 98.05) and no element (M: 620 ms; SD: 105.29) on the handle for spider-fearful participants only, t(22) = 2.34, p < 0.05 and t(22) = 2.09, p < 0.05, respectively.
 
Literatuur
Anelli, F., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2012). Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1627–1639.PubMedCrossRef
Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., Bolzani, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2013). Keep away from danger: Dangerous objects in dynamic and static situations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 344.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Anwyl-Irvine, A. L., Massonnié, J., Flitton, A., Kirkham, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2020). Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 388–407.PubMedCrossRef
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRef
Basanovic, J., Dean, L., Riskind, J. H., & MacLeod, C. (2019). High spider-fearful and low spider-fearful individuals differentially perceive the speed of approaching, but not receding, spider stimuli. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 43(2), 514–521.CrossRef
Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I: Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 276–298.PubMedCrossRef
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2000). Measuring emotion: Behavior, feeling, and physiology. In R. D. Lane & L. Nadel (Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience of emotion (pp. 242–276). Oxford University Press.
Buccino, G., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Rodà, F., & Riggio, L. (2009). Broken affordances, broken objects: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 47(14), 3074–3078.PubMedCrossRef
Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.CrossRef
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 853–861.PubMed
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 737.PubMed
Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W. (2013). Object-based correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface-property judgments with keypress responses: Evidence for a basis in spatial coding. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77(5), 618–636.PubMedCrossRef
Conde, E. F. Q., Jazenko, F., Fraga Filho, R. S., da Costa, D. H., Torro-Alves, N., Cavallet, M., & Gawryszewski, L. G. (2011). Stimulus affective valence reverses spatial compatibility effect. Psychology & Neuroscience, 4, 81–87.CrossRef
Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Visuomotor priming. Visual Cognition, 5, 109–125.CrossRef
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body, emotion and the making of consciousness. Vintage Books.
De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., Baeyens, F., & Hermans, D. (2001). On the generality of the affective Simon effect. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 189–206.CrossRef
Eder, A. B., & Hommel, B. (2013). Anticipatory control of approach and avoidance: An ideomotor approach. Emotion Review, 5, 275–279.CrossRef
Ellis, R. (2018). Bodies and other objects: The sensorimotor foundations of cognition (p. I–II). Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.PubMedCrossRef
Fini, C., Fischer, M., Bardi, L., Brass, M., & Moors, A. (2020). Support from a TMS/MEP study for a direct link between positive/negative stimuli and approach/avoidance tendencies. Neuropsychologia, 143, 107496.PubMedCrossRef
Fischer, M. H., & Dahl, C. D. (2007). The time course of visuo-motor affordances. Experimental Brain Research, 176(3), 519–524.PubMedCrossRef
Fischer, M., Fini, C., Brass, M., & Moors, A. (2020). Early approach and avoidance tendencies can be goal-directed: Support from a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 20, 648–657.CrossRef
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.PubMedCrossRef
Freddi, S., Brouillet, T., Cretenet, J., Heurley, L. P., & Dru, V. (2016). A continuous mapping between space and valence with left-and right-handers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(3), 865–870.CrossRef
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Goslin, J., Dixon, T., Fischer, M. H., Cangelosi, A., & Ellis, R. (2012). Electrophysiological examination of embodiment in vision and action. Psychological Science, 23(2), 152–157.PubMedCrossRef
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.PubMedCrossRef
Hajcak, G., Moser, J. S., & Simons, R. F. (2006). Attending to affect: Appraisal strategies modulate the electrocortical response to arousing pictures. Emotion, 6(3), 517.PubMedCrossRef
Hariri, A. R., Mattay, V. S., Tessitore, A., Fera, F., & Weinberger, D. R. (2003). Neocortical modulation of the amygdala response to fearful stimuli. Biological Psychiatry, 53(6), 494–501.PubMedCrossRef
Hommel, B., Lippelt, D. P., Gurbuz, E., & Pfister, R. (2017). Contributions of expected sensory and affective action effects to action selection and performance: Evidence from forced-and free-choice tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 821–827.CrossRef
Iani, C., Baroni, G., Pellicano, A., & Nicoletti, R. (2011). On the relationship between affordance and Simon effects: Are the effects really independent? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 121–131.CrossRef
Keightley, M. L., Winocur, G., Graham, S. J., Mayberg, H. S., Hevenor, S. J., & Grady, C. L. (2003). An fMRI study investigating cognitive modulation of brain regions associated with emotional processing of visual stimuli. Neuropsychologia, 41(5), 585–596.PubMedCrossRef
Kozlik, J., Neumann, R., & Lozo, L. (2015). Contrasting motivational orientation and evaluative coding accounts: On the need to differentiate the effectors of approach/avoidance responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 563.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Laham, S. M., Kashima, Y., Dix, J., & Wheeler, M. (2015). A meta-analysis of the facilitation of arm flexion and extension movements as a function of stimulus valence. Cognition and Emotion, 29(6), 1069–1090.PubMedCrossRef
Lavender, T., & Hommel, B. (2007). Affect and action: Towards an event-coding account. Cognition and Emotion, 21(6), 1270–1296.CrossRef
LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Touchstone.
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.CrossRef
Markman, A. B., & Brendl, C. M. (2005). Constraining theories of embodied cognition. Psychological Science, 16, 6–10.PubMedCrossRef
Michalland, A. H., Thébault, G., Briglia, J., Fraisse, P., & Brouillet, D. (2019). Grasping a Chestnut Burr. Experimental Psychology, 66(4), 310–317.PubMedCrossRef
Michalowski, J. M., Melzig, C. A., Weike, A. I., Stockburger, J., Schupp, H. T., & Hamm, A. O. (2009). Brain dynamics in spider-phobic individuals exposed to phobia-relevant and other emotional stimuli. Emotion, 9(3), 306.PubMedCrossRef
Moors, A., Fini, C., Everaert, T., Bardi, L., Bossuyt, E., Kuppens, P., & Brass, M. (2019). The role of stimulus-driven versus goal-directed processes in fight and flight tendencies measured with motor evoked potentials induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. PLoS One, 14(5), e0217266.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Muris, P., & Merckelbach, H. (1996). A comparison of two spider fear questionnaires. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 27(3), 241–244.PubMedCrossRef
Mustile, M., Giocondo, F., Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., & Kourtis, D. (2021). Motor inhibition to dangerous objects: Electrophysiological evidence for task-dependent aversive affordances. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 33(5), 826-839.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.PubMedCrossRef
Osgood, C. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49, 172–237.CrossRef
Pellicano, A., & Binkofski, F. (2021). The prominent role of perceptual salience in object discrimination: Overt discrimination of graspable side does not activate grasping affordances. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85(3), 1234–1247.PubMedCrossRef
Pereira, M. G., Volchan, E., de Souza, G. G. L., Oliveira, L., Campagnoli, R. R., Pinheiro, W. M., & Pessoa, L. (2006). Sustained and transient modulation of performance induced by emotional picture viewing. Emotion, 6(4), 622–634.
Phaf, R. H., Mohr, S. E., Rotteveel, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Approach, avoidance, and affect: A meta-analysis of approach-avoidance tendencies in manual reaction time tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–16.CrossRef
Saccone, E. J., Churches, O., & Nicholls, M. E. (2016). Explicit spatial compatibility is not critical to the object handle effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(10), 1643–1653.PubMed
Scerrati, E., & D’Ascenzo, S. (2018). Effetti di corrispondenza con oggetti a funzione implicita versus esplicita. Giornale Italiano Di Psicologia, 45(3), 669–676.
Scerrati, E., Iani, C., Lugli, L., & Rubichi, S. (2019). C’è un effetto di potenziamento dell’azione con oggetti bimanuali? Giornale Italiano Di Psicologia, 46(4), 987–996.
Scerrati, E., Iani, C., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Rubichi, S. (2020a). Do my hands prime your hands? The hand-to-response correspondence effect. Acta Psychologica, 203, 1–12. CrossRef
Scerrati, E., Iani, C., & Rubichi, S. (2021). Does the activation of motor information affect semantic processing? In L. Bechberger, K.-U. Kühnberger & M. Liu (Eds.), Concepts in Action (pp. 153–166). Springer, Cham.
Scerrati, E., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (2017). Comparing Stroop-like and Simon effects on perceptual features. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–11.CrossRef
Scerrati, E., Marzola, G., Villani, C., Lugli, L., & D’Ascenzo, S. (2021). Nuovi scenari per gli esperimenti in psicologia: la modalità online. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia (In press).
Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). North-Holland.
Solarz, A. K. (1960). Latency on instrumental responses as a function of compatibility with the meaning of eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 239–245.PubMedCrossRef
Song, X., Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2017). Role of hand dominance in mapping preferences for emotional-valence words to keypress responses. Acta Psychologica, 180, 33–39.PubMedCrossRef
Szymanski, J., & O’Donohue, W. (1995). Fear of spiders questionnaire. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26(1), 31–34.PubMedCrossRef
Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E. (2006). Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 493–498.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846.PubMed
Vainio, L., Ala-Salomäki, H., Huovilainen, T., Nikkinen, H., Salo, M., Väliaho, J., & Paavilainen, P. (2014). Mug handle affordance and automatic response inhibition: Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(9), 1697–1719.PubMedCrossRef
Vainio, L., & Ellis, R. (2020). Action inhibition and affordances associated with a non-target object: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 487–502.CrossRef
Vainio, L., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2007). The role of visual attention in action priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(2), 241–261.PubMedCrossRef
Van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Approach and avoidance as action effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1298–1306.CrossRef
Yamaguchi, M., & Chen, J. (2019). Affective influences without approach/avoidance actions: On the congruence between valence and stimulus-response mappings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(2), 545–551.CrossRef
Yamaguchi, M., Chen, J., Mishler, S., & Proctor, R. W. (2018). Flowers and spiders in spatial stimulus-response compatibility: Does affective valence influence selection of task-sets or selection of responses? Cognition and Emotion, 32(5), 1003–1017.PubMedCrossRef
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Emotions in motion: affective valence can influence compatibility effects with graspable objects
Auteurs
Elisa Scerrati
Sandro Rubichi
Roberto Nicoletti
Cristina Iani
Publicatiedatum
26-05-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2023
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01688-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2023

Psychological Research 3/2023 Naar de uitgave

Original Article

Evaluating individual differences in rewarded Stroop performance: reliability and associations with self-report measures

Original Article

Is the performance at the implicit association test sensitive to feedback presentation? A Rasch-based analysis

Original Article

Cognitive load promotes honesty

Original Article

When time stands upright: STEARC effects along the vertical axis

Original Article

Olfactory imagery as a retrieval method for autobiographical memories

Original Article

Disentangling task-selection failures from task-execution failures in task switching: an assessment of different paradigms