“Mother nature doesn’t have a bullet with your name on it”: Coding with reference to one’s name or object location?

The effect of target-related and target-irrelevant novel stimuli on response behaviour

Novel events catch our attention, which can influence performance of a task. Whether this attentional capture by novelty benefits or impairs performance depends on several factors, such as the relevance of the stimulus, task requirements, and the timing of the event. Additionally, it has been argued that novel stimuli can hold intrinsic reward value, which may directly affect approach motivation, similar to positive valence stimuli. This link between novelty and approach/avoid behaviour has not been investigated directly. Here, we investigated whether stimulus novelty interacts with response behaviour in an approach/avoidance task, and whether these effects depend on the task relevance of novelty and stimulus timing. In experiment 1, participants gave an approach or avoid response dependent on a shape (diamond or square) presented at different stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA) following a novel or familiar scene (target-irrelevant novelty). In experiment 2, participants had to approach or avoid a novel or familiar image depending on the content (indoor/outdoor; target-related novelty). A shape was presented at different SOA. Results of a linear mixed model showed novelty-induced performance costs as demonstrated by longer RT and lower accuracy when novelty was target-relevant, likely due to attentional lingering at novel images. When images were target-irrelevant, approach but not avoid responses were faster for familiar versus novel images at 200 ms SOA only. Thus, novelty had a differentially pronounced detrimental effect on performance. These observations confirm that processing of novel stimuli generally depends on stimulus relevance, and tentatively suggests that differential processing of novel and familiar images is intensified by motivated approach behaviour.

Vertically arrayed stimuli and responses: transfer of incompatible spatial mapping to Simon task occurs regardless of response-device orientation

Conde et al. (Exp Brain Res 233:3313-3321, 2015) found that the Simon effect for vertically arrayed stimuli and responses was reduced after 100 prior practice trials with an incompatible mapping of the stimulus locations and responses. This finding was contrary to Vu's (Mem Cognit 35:1463-1471, 2007) finding of no transfer effect with 72 trials of prior practice. Conde et al. proposed that the different results were due to their responses being coded as top and bottom in the frontal plane, whereas Vu's were coded as far and near in the transverse plane. We conducted four experiments to test this possibility in which participants responded with keypresses using their thumbs on a numeric keypad held vertically (upright in the frontal plane) or horizontally (flat in the transverse plane). Experiment 1 showed that, without any prior practice, a similar sized Simon effect was obtained when the response device was oriented in the transverse plane as when it was oriented in the frontal plane. In Experiments 2 and 3 participants performed with the same device orientation in the incompatible practice and Simon transfer tasks, with orientation manipulated between-subjects in the former and within-subjects in the latter. The Simon effect was reduced in both cases, with no significant difference in transfer effect for transverse and frontal planes. In Experiment 4, the device orientation differed between the incompatible practice and Simon transfer tasks, and the Simon effect was reduced similarly across both response-device orientations. Thus, the differences between Conde et al.'s and Vu's findings cannot be attributed to the response-device orientation. Our results are consistent with the view that people code response locations in the transverse plane as top and bottom, rather than far and near, in agreement with the terminology of "top row" and "bottom row" for computer keyboards.

Emotions and language about motion: Differentiating affective dominance with syntax from valence with semantics

Motion as encoded in linguistic cues is used to differentiate affective valence and dominance. Participants were invited to rate their affective responses to different words along valence and dominance scales. The words were nouns describing static cues and verbs describing motion, connected to DOWN/UP and Avoidance/Approach cues. The results of three studies showed that valence and dominance could be differentiated through syntax and semantics of motion. On one hand, dominance feelings, compared to valence ones, are particularly influenced by motion encoded in syntactic classes (verbs vs. nouns). On the other hand, valence feelings, compared to dominance ones, are influenced by a semantics of motion through DOWN/UP and Avoidance/Approach cues, considered as polarities. A polarity correspondence effect is proposed to explain these results.

Motor and cognitive integration: effect of bilateral behaviors on judgment

Performing approach vs. avoidance behaviors (arm flexion vs. arm extension) on the one hand, and lateralized peripheral activations (left side vs. right side) of the motivational systems of approach vs. avoidance, on the other hand, have been shown to impact on cognitive functioning (Cretenet, & Dru, 2009), mainly in judgment tasks. When a unilateral motor congruent behavior; that is, a behavior that activates the same motivational system (e.g., flexion of the right arm) was performed during a judgment task, participants' use of complex, interactive information integration rules was facilitated. No effect was, however, found when simpler, additive rules were involved (Mullet, Cretenet, & Dru, 2014). Three experiments are reported here that examined the effect of bilateral motor behaviors (e.g., flexion of the right arm and extension of the left arm) on the implementation of information integration rules. In Studies 1 and 2, two judgment tasks similar to the ones used by Mullet et al. (2014) were used: (a) a complex task in which participants judged a person's attractiveness from personality information, and (b) a simpler task in which they attributed blame according to bad deeds. It was found that similar motor behaviors performed by the two arms (e.g., flexion of both arms), in contrast to dissimilar ones, facilitated the use of complex, interactive information integration rules. No effect was found in the case of simpler integration rules. In Study 3, these results were replicated in a judgment task in which the complexity of the integration rule varied depending on the instructions given. Overall, when bilateral motor behaviors were performed during judgment, facilitation in the use of complex integration rules no longer depended on motivational congruence as in the case of unilateral motor behavior. It depended on symmetry/similarity of behaviors.

The self's symbolic role in implicit approach/avoidance: movement time evidence

Theories of self-regulation emphasize the special role that the symbolic self may play in approach and avoidance movements, but experimental evidence is lacking. In two experiments (total N = 157), participants moved either a self-relevant (e.g., "me") or non-self (e.g., "not me") agent to one of two locations, one occupied by a positive word and the other occupied by a negative word. In both experiments, the movement agent interacted with the destination valence such that it was only the symbolic self that moved more quickly to positive rather than negative locations. These results established a role for the symbolic self in approach/avoidance that had been questioned, thereby supporting both classic and contemporary self-related theories of approach and avoidance.

Approach, avoidance, and affect: a meta-analysis of approach-avoidance tendencies in manual reaction time tasks

Approach action tendencies toward positive stimuli and avoidance tendencies from negative stimuli are widely seen to foster survival. Many studies have shown that approach and avoidance arm movements are facilitated by positive and negative affect, respectively. There is considerable debate whether positively and negatively valenced stimuli prime approach and avoidance movements directly (i.e., immediate, unintentional, implicit, automatic, and stimulus-based), or indirectly (i.e., after conscious or non-conscious interpretation of the situation). The direction and size of these effects were often found to depend on the instructions referring to the stimulus object or the self, and on explicit vs. implicit stimulus evaluation. We present a meta-analysis of 29 studies included for their use of strongly positive and negative stimuli, with 81 effect sizes derived solely from the means and standard deviations (combined N = 1538), to examine the automaticity of the link between affective information processing and approach and avoidance, and to test whether it depends on instruction, type of approach-avoidance task, and stimulus type. Results show a significant small to medium-sized effect after correction for publication bias. The strongest arguments for an indirect link between affect and approach-avoidance were the absence of evidence for an effect with implicit evaluation, and the opposite directions of the effect with self and object-related interpretations. The link appears to be influenced by conscious or non-conscious intentions to deal with affective stimuli.

Anticipatory Control of Approach and Avoidance: An Ideomotor Approach

This article reviews evidence suggesting that the cause of approach and avoidance behavior lies not so much in the presence (i.e., the stimulus) but, rather, in the behavior’s anticipated future consequences (i.e., the goal): Approach is motivated by the goal to produce a desired consequence or end-state, while avoidance is motivated by the goal to prevent an undesired consequence or end-state. However, even though approach and avoidance are controlled by goals rather than stimuli, affective stimuli can influence action control by priming associated goals. An integrative ideomotor model of approach and avoidance is presented and discussed.

Explicit and implicit approach motivation interact to predict interpersonal arrogance

Self-reports of approach motivation are unlikely to be sufficient in understanding the extent to which the individual reacts to appetitive cues in an approach-related manner. A novel implicit probe of approach tendencies was thus developed, one that assessed the extent to which positive affective (versus neutral) stimuli primed larger size estimates, as larger perceptual sizes co-occur with locomotion toward objects in the environment. In two studies (total N = 150), self-reports of approach motivation interacted with this implicit probe of approach motivation to predict individual differences in arrogance, a broad interpersonal dimension previously linked to narcissism, antisocial personality tendencies, and aggression. The results of the two studies were highly parallel in that self-reported levels of approach motivation predicted interpersonal arrogance in the particular context of high, but not low, levels of implicit approach motivation. Implications for understanding approach motivation, implicit probes of it, and problematic approach-related outcomes are discussed.