Approach and avoidance as action effects

Numerous studies use arm movements (arm flexion and extension) to investigate the interaction between emotional stimuli and approach/avoidance behaviour. In many experiments, however, these arm movements are ambiguous. Arm flexion can be interpreted either as pulling (approach) or as withdrawing (avoidance). On the contrary, arm extension can be interpreted as reaching (approach) or as pushing (avoidance). This ambiguity can be resolved by regarding approach and avoidance as flexible action plans that are represented in terms of their effects. Approach actions reduce the distance between a stimulus and the self, whereas avoidance actions increase that distance. In this view, action effects are an integral part of the representation of an action. As a result, a neutral action can become an approach or avoidance reaction if it repeatedly results in decreasing or increasing the distance to a valenced stimulus. This hypothesis was tested in the current study. Participants responded to positive and negative words using key-presses. These “neutral” responses (not involving arm flexion or extension) were consistently followed by a stimulus movement toward or away from the participant. Responses to emotional words were faster when the response's effect was congruent with stimulus valence, suggesting that approach/avoidance actions are indeed defined in terms of their outcomes.

[1]  F. Strack,et al.  Movement direction or change in distance? Self- and object-related approach–avoidance motions ☆ , 2008 .

[2]  B. Hommel,et al.  Affect and action: Towards an event-coding account , 2007 .

[3]  M. Rinck,et al.  Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. , 2007, Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry.

[4]  Gerhard Rinkenauer,et al.  Individual differences in approach and avoidance movements: how the avoidance motive influences response force. , 2006, Journal of personality.

[5]  N. Ambady,et al.  The effects of fear and anger facial expressions on approach- and avoidance-related behaviors. , 2005, Emotion.

[6]  A. Markman,et al.  Constraining Theories of Embodied Cognition , 2005, Psychological science.

[7]  F. Strack,et al.  Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[8]  R. H. Phaf,et al.  Automatic affective evaluation does not automatically predispose for arm flexion and extension. , 2004, Emotion.

[9]  Armin Stock,et al.  A short history of ideo-motor action , 2004, Psychological research.

[10]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The Automatic Evaluation of Novel Stimuli , 2002, Psychological science.

[11]  Tom Beckers,et al.  Automatic integration of non-perceptual action effect features: the case of the associative affective Simon effect , 2002, Psychological research.

[12]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[13]  D. Wentura,et al.  Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Consequences of Automatic Evaluation: Immediate Behavioral Predispositions to Approach or Avoid the Stimulus , 1999 .

[15]  B. Kushner Descartes' error. , 1998, Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

[16]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[17]  A. Damasio Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York (Grosset/Putnam) 1994. , 1994 .