Reports
How farsighted are behavioral tendencies of approach and avoidance? The effect of stimulus valence on immediate vs. ultimate distance change

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.021Get rights and content

Abstract

Research suggests that affective stimuli facilitate behavior that causes a compatible change in distance (i.e., approach positive and avoid negative stimuli). In natural settings, however, behavior often causes different consequences at different points in time. It is unclear whether affective stimuli interact with immediate or ultimate action-consequences (i.e., consequences that are more removed in time). To shed light on this, we tested whether stimulus valence facilitates behavior that ultimately causes a compatible change in distance, even when this behavior immediately causes an incompatible distance change. Participants moved a manikin on a computer screen toward or away from a positive or negative word. On half of the trials, moving the manikin ultimately in one direction required an initial movement in the opposite direction. Results from two studies showed that stimulus valence facilitated ultimate-compatible distance change regardless of the initial direction. This suggests that affective stimuli facilitate behavior that is relatively farsighted.

Section snippets

Experiment 1

In Experiment 1, we manipulated ultimate DC by means of “normal” and “magic flying carpets”. On each trial of the approach–avoidance task, a manikin appeared flanked by either normal or magic flying carpets (see Fig. 1). Normal flying carpets were carpets that continued to move in the same direction as the initial movement of the manikin. For instance, when the manikin stepped on the left carpet it moved to the left. Magic flying carpets were carpets that moved in the opposite direction. For

Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to replicate and extend the results of Experiment 1. Particularly, Experiment 2 focused on the observation that stimulus valence facilitated immediate-compatible DC in parallel to ultimate-compatible DC. Because response latencies in Experiment 1 were relatively long, Experiment 1 cannot exclude that valence facilitates immediate-compatible responses at early stages of processing, whereas ultimate-compatible responses are facilitated only at later stages of

General discussion

In two experiments, stimulus valence facilitated responses that ultimately caused a compatible DC, regardless of the direction of immediate DC. Most importantly and going beyond previous research, the present experiments show that stimulus valence facilitates even immediate-incompatible DC if it ultimately leads to a compatible DC. Whereas stimulus valence also facilitated immediate-compatible responses to some degree in Experiment 1, no such evidence was found in Experiment 2. Following Lewin

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a postdoctoral travel grant from the European Association of Social Psychology to Regina Krieglmeyer, Grant KR 3742/1-1 from the German Science Foundation to Regina Krieglmeyer, and Grant BOF09/01M00209 of Ghent University to Jan De Houwer. We thank the Attitude and Social Cognition Lab at UCD for helpful discussions.

References (29)

  • L.J. Chapman et al.

    Do children and the elderly show heightened semantic priming? How to answer the question

    Developmental Review

    (1994)
  • B. Seibt et al.

    Movement direction or change in distance? Self and object related approach–avoidance movements

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2008)
  • J.A. Bargh

    The ecology of automaticity: Toward establishing the conditions needed to produce automatic processing effects

    The American Journal of Psychology

    (1992)
  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    The generality of the attitude activation effect

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1992)
  • J.T. Cacioppo et al.

    Rudimentary determinants of attitudes II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1993)
  • M. Chen et al.

    Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1999)
  • R.J. Davidson et al.

    Approach–withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: Emotional expression and brain physiology: I

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • R. De Jong et al.

    Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1994)
  • A. Dickinson et al.

    Appetitive–aversive interactions and inhibitory processes

  • A.B. Eder et al.

    When do motor behaviors (mis)match affective stimuli? An evaluative coding view of approach and avoidance reactions

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

    (2008)
  • M.E. Faust et al.

    Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1999)
  • J.A. Gray

    Three fundamental emotion systems

  • B. Hommel

    Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information

    Psychological Research

    (1993)
  • Cited by (26)

    • Neural underpinnings of valence-action interactions triggered by cues and targets in a rewarded approach/avoidance task

      2021, Cortex
      Citation Excerpt :

      The behavioral data were first cleaned by excluding trials with responses before and within 150 msec from target onset. This cut-off was based on the data cleaning procedures used in related approach/avoidance studies (e.g., Hoofs et al., 2019; Hoofs, Carsten, et al., 2019; Krieglmeyer et al., 2010; Krieglmeyer, De Houwer, & Deutsch, 2011; Reichardt, 2018a, 2018b) and should prevent inclusion of trials with premature responses that are not actually triggered by target presentation (Samson, 2017). Next, trials in which no responses were registered (misses) were excluded from the dataset.

    • Support from a TMS/MEP study for a direct link between positive/negative stimuli and approach/avoidance tendencies

      2020, Neuropsychologia
      Citation Excerpt :

      The results of Experiment 1 were not replicated in Experiment 2, which was confirmed by analyzing the aggregated data. Taken together, the results of both experiments support the idea that stimulus valence can elicit the tendencies to approach or avoid (Krieglmeyer et al., 2011)—or any positive or negative action tendencies more generally (Eder and Rothermund, 2008)—, but that representations of clear visual action outcomes are necessary for this effect to occur. A few potential limitations deserve attention.

    • Using Motion Tracking to Measure Avoidance in Children and Adults: Psychometric Properties, Associations With Clinical Characteristics, and Treatment-Related Change

      2018, Behavior Therapy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Even in approach-avoidance tests that have greater capacity for standardization, methods have varied a great deal. In most studies subjects pull or push a lever in response to valenced words, but in other studies subjects move an on-screen manikin representing themselves toward or away from a stimulus, and in other studies the subject may be asked to move valenced words toward or away from their own name (Cacioppo, Priester, & Berntson, 1993; Chen & Bargh, 1999; Krieglmeyer, De Houwer, & Deutsch, 2011; Markman & Brendl, 2005). Classical behavioral avoidance tests often generate a single datum by which the avoidance is indexed, for example the number of feet from a stimulus at which a subject halted their approach.

    • A new look at sensorimotor aspects in approach/avoidance tendencies: The role of visual whole-body movement information

      2018, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      With arm movements, a flexion can represent approach (e.g., bringing a cake closer) but also avoidance (e.g., withdrawing one's hand from a snake), the same being true for extension. In contrast, this level of ambiguity is very low for movements of the whole-self because, almost by definition, moving forward and backward always means approach and avoidance, respectively (Kozlik, Neumann, & Lozo, 2015; Krieglmeyer & Deutsch, 2010; Stins et al., 2011; “almost” because there are exceptions, for instance, when an obstacle first needs to be bypassed; Krieglmeyer, De Houwer, & Deutsch, 2011). The second reason relates to an intrinsic asymmetry between movements of the self and arm movements.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text