91
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Anger is an approach-related affect: evidence and implications.

          The authors review a range of evidence concerning the motivational underpinnings of anger as an affect, with particular reference to the relationship between anger and anxiety or fear. The evidence supports the view that anger relates to an appetitive or approach motivational system, whereas anxiety relates to an aversive or avoidance motivational system. This evidence appears to have 2 implications. One implication concerns the nature of anterior cortical asymmetry effects. The evidence suggests that such asymmetry reflects direction of motivational engagement (approach vs. withdrawal) rather than affective valence. The other implication concerns the idea that affects form a purely positive dimension and a purely negative dimension, which reflect the operation of appetitive and aversive motivational systems, respectively. The evidence reviewed does not support that view. The evidence is, however, consistent with a discrete-emotions view (which does not rely on dimensionality) and with an alternative dimensional approach. (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Rules of the Game Called Psychological Science.

            If science were a game, a dominant rule would probably be to collect results that are statistically significant. Several reviews of the psychological literature have shown that around 96% of papers involving the use of null hypothesis significance testing report significant outcomes for their main results but that the typical studies are insufficiently powerful for such a track record. We explain this paradox by showing that the use of several small underpowered samples often represents a more efficient research strategy (in terms of finding p < .05) than does the use of one larger (more powerful) sample. Publication bias and the most efficient strategy lead to inflated effects and high rates of false positives, especially when researchers also resorted to questionable research practices, such as adding participants after intermediate testing. We provide simulations that highlight the severity of such biases in meta-analyses. We consider 13 meta-analyses covering 281 primary studies in various fields of psychology and find indications of biases and/or an excess of significant results in seven. These results highlight the need for sufficiently powerful replications and changes in journal policies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Consequences of Automatic Evaluation: Immediate Behavioral Predispositions to Approach or Avoid the Stimulus

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                08 May 2014
                2014
                : 5
                : 378
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Amsterdam Brain and Cognition Center, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [2] 2Brain and Cognition Program, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [3] 3Social Psychology Program, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [4] 4Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University Tilburg, Netherlands
                Author notes

                Edited by: Andrew Kemp, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil

                Reviewed by: Ana Carolina Saraiva, University College London, UK; Daniel S. Quintana, University of Oslo, Norway

                *Correspondence: R. Hans Phaf, Brain and Cognition Program, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, Netherlands e-mail: r.h.phaf@ 123456uva.nl

                This article was submitted to Emotion Science, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00378
                4021119
                24847292
                ab019c08-2faf-452d-8f52-c4de926fc600
                Copyright © 2014 Phaf, Mohr, Rotteveel and Wicherts.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 03 January 2014
                : 10 April 2014
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 6, Equations: 3, References: 77, Pages: 16, Words: 14588
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                approach,avoidance,affect,arm movement,direct vs. indirect
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                approach, avoidance, affect, arm movement, direct vs. indirect

                Comments

                Comment on this article