The evaluation-behavior link: Direct and beyond valence

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.017Get rights and content

Abstract

The present research tests the hypothesis that affective stimuli automatically trigger approach/avoidance tendencies. A first experiment showed that in a vigilance task participants responded faster with an approach behavior (i.e., arm flexion) to happy words than to sad words and faster with an avoidance behavior (i.e., arm extension) to sad than to happy words that were presented outside of conscious awareness. These findings were replicated and extended in a second experiment. In this experiment, emotion words presented outside of conscious awareness were responded faster by arm flexion when they were associated with approach than when they were associated with avoidance, irrespective of their valence. Conversely, emotion words associated with avoidance were responded faster by arm extension. Globally, these findings suggest that the implicit perception of affective stimuli automatically triggers the behavioral responses that are associated with them.

Section snippets

A direct link between automatic evaluation and behavioral tendencies?

One of the central questions debated in the literature concerns whether the link between the processing of evaluative information and the behavioral predispositions of approach or avoidance is automatic. Theoretical positions assume that individuals continuously appraise the environment for potential dangers and benefits and the result of these appraisals triggers motor programs that help individuals manage the environment efficiently (Wentura and Rothermund, 2003, Zajonc, 1980). Moreover, the

Approach/avoidance: A matter of valence?

Most models posit that what triggers behavioral approach or avoidance is the processing of valence of the stimulus (Cacioppo et al., 1993, Lang et al., 1990, Neumann et al., 2003, Strack and Deutsch, 2004). Such an assumption is derived from the view that at very early stages of information processing stimuli are grossly appraised as either “good” or “bad” (e.g., Zajonc, 1980). Stimuli appraised as positive are approached whereas those appraised as negative are avoided. However, there are many

Experiment 1

This first experiment was designed to test the link between automatic evaluation and the elicitation of behavioral tendencies. In order to provide a more stringent test of this hypothesis, the affective stimuli were presented outside of participants’ awareness. Because happiness is associated with approach and sadness is associated with avoidance (Adams & Kleck, 2003), we predicted that participants should respond faster by an approach behavior (i.e., arm flexion) to happy than to sad stimuli

Experiment 2

The second experiment was aimed at testing whether the effects observed in the first experiment are attributable to the valence of the stimuli or to more specific action requirements. We make the assumption that the emotional connotation of a stimulus is more important than its valence in the determination of the triggered behavioral reaction. As already mentioned, some negative stimuli require approach (e.g., anger-eliciting stimuli) whereas other (e.g., fear-eliciting stimuli) require

General discussion

These studies both demonstrated the impact of affective stimuli on behavioral responses of arm flexion and extension. Importantly, in both experiments these effects on arm movements were found in the absence of any conscious perception of the word stimuli by the participants. This bypasses some ambiguities of previous work where conclusions could not be drawn concerning the conscious evaluation of the stimuli by the participants (Chen and Bargh, 1999, Duckworth et al., 2002, Rotteveel and Phaf,

References (31)

  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    The automatic evaluation effect: unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • R.B. Adams et al.

    Perceived gaze direction and the processing of facial displays of emotion

    Psychological Science

    (2003)
  • J.A. Bargh

    The automaticity of everyday life

  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    The mind in the middle: a practical guide to priming and automaticity research

  • 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)
  • T.L. Chartrand et al.

    Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1996)
  • M. Chen et al.

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

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1999)
  • D. DeSteno et al.

    Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: the role of emotion specificity

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2000)
  • K.L. Duckworth et al.

    The automatic evaluation of novel stimuli

    Psychological Science

    (2002)
  • N.H. Frijda

    The emotions

    (1986)
  • N.H. Frijda et al.

    Relations among emotions, appraisal, and emotional action readiness

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1989)
  • C.M. Judd et al.

    Data analysis: A model comparison approach

    (1989)
  • G. Keppel

    Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook

    (1991)
  • P.J. Lang et al.

    Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex

    Psychological Review

    (1990)
  • J.A. LeDoux

    The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life

    (1996)

    • Cited by (47)

    • Nodding and shaking of the head as simulated approach and avoidance responses

      2020, Acta Psychologica
      Citation Excerpt :

      Having found motor compatibility effects involving the two head gestures and two different types of evaluation, one semantic, explicit and based on shared meanings and knowledge, and one affective, implicit, and dependent on emotional dispositions towards valenced objects, led us to interpret our present and previous results in terms of the general Approach and Avoidance model (Chen & Bargh, 1999; Solarz, 1960). This provides evidence that supports embodied social cognition studies that have found AAEs with arm movements and subjective evaluations of abstract and valenced stimuli (Alexopoulos & Ric, 2007; Cacioppo et al., 1993; Chen & Bargh, 1999; Förster & Strack, 1997; Saraiva, Schüür, & Bestmann, 2013; Solarz, 1960; Wentura, Rothermund, & Bak, 2000). Since approach responses reduce the distance between the agent and the stimulus concerned, whilst refusing means increasing that distance, it seems plausible to interpret the gesture of nodding, where the head is moved vertically towards the body, as an approach response, and the gesture of shaking the head, in which the head is moved from side to side, horizontally, as an avoidance response (Bousmalis et al., 2013; Darwin, 1872; Osugi & Kawahara, 2017).

    • The online-VAAST: A short and online tool to measure spontaneous approach and avoidance tendencies

      2019, Acta Psychologica
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the first category, the authors relied (exclusively) on the meaning supposedly associated with arm flexion and arm extension, often approach and avoidance, respectively. Typically, researchers used the joystick task or the modified keyboard task to measure how positive stimuli facilitate arm flexion (i.e., bringing closer) and how negative stimuli facilitate extension (i.e., pushing away; e.g., Alexopoulos & Ric, 2007; Chen & Bargh, 1999; Rinck & Becker, 2007). However, one major limitation with this kind of task is that it is possible to interpret arm movements in two alternatives, and indeed opposite, ways (Markman & Brendl, 2005; Paladino & Castelli, 2008; Seibt, Neumann, Nussinson, & Strack, 2008).

    • 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 :

      First, when focusing on the motor modality of arm movements, interpreting these movements is ambiguous because arm flexions can both represent approach (bringing something closer to us) or avoidance (withdrawing our hand from something) and arm extensions can both represent approach or avoidance (reaching something or pushing something away; van Dantzig, Pecher, & Zwaan, 2008). This explains that while numerous studies found a compatibility effect where approach was presumably associated with arm flexion and avoidance associated with arm extension (Alexopoulos & Ric, 2007; Chen & Bargh, 1999; Rinck & Becker, 2007; Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004), other studies found the opposite (Lavender & Hommel, 2007; Markman & Brendl, 2005; Paladino & Castelli, 2008; Seibt et al., 2008; Vaes et al., 2003). Importantly, this reversal could not be explained simply by the use of different paradigms (e.g., modified keyboard vs. joystick), because it sometimes happened even within the same task (i.e., a modified keyboard task, Alexopoulos & Ric, 2007 vs. Paladino & Castelli, 2008 or the joystick task, Seibt et al., 2008; van Dantzig, Zeelenberg, & Pecher, 2009).

    • Can Sitting Postures Influence the Creative Mind? Positive Effect of Contractive Posture on Convergent-Integrative Thinking

      2024, Creativity Research Journal

    • Pandemic related changes in social interaction are associated with changes in automatic approach-avoidance behaviour

      2023, Scientific Reports

    • The hot and the cold in destructive leadership: Modeling the role of arousal in explaining leader antecedents and follower consequences of abusive supervision versus exploitative leadership

      2023, Organizational Psychology Review
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text
    Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.