Approach–Avoidance Training Effects Are Moderated by Awareness of Stimulus–Action Contingencies

Abstract

Prior research suggests that repeatedly approaching or avoiding a stimulus changes the liking of that stimulus. In two experiments, we investigated the relationship between, on one hand, effects of approach-avoidance (AA) training on implicit and explicit evaluations of novel faces and, on the other hand, contingency awareness as indexed by participants' memory for the relation between stimulus and action. We observed stronger effects for faces that were classified as contingency aware and found no evidence that AA training caused changes in stimulus evaluations in the absence of contingency awareness. These findings challenge the standard view that AA training effects are (exclusively) the product of implicit learning processes, such as the automatic formation of associations in memory.

The effects of a gamified approach avoidance training and verbal suggestions on food outcomes

“…Note, however, that this explanation does not fit well with the observation that most of the participants were surprised by hearing the study aim. Fourth, previous research provided support for the moderating effects of contingency awareness on implicit and explicit stimulus evaluations [ 27 , 48 ]. In future research, it would therefore be interesting to evaluate whether contingency awareness moderates the effects of gamified approach-avoidance training and verbal suggestions on food-related outcomes.…”

Model-free and model-based learning processes in the updating of explicit and implicit evaluations

“…The contribution of the present project is twofold. First, we show that, in addition to other forms of evaluative learning such as mere exposure (34), Pavlovian learning (35), approachavoidance training (36), and verbal instructions (12), implicit evaluations of stimuli, similar to their explicit counterparts, are amenable to updating as a result of reinforcement learning, i.e., experience with the positive and negative outcomes of actions involving those stimuli. Second, we demonstrate a commonality and a difference in the computations underpinning the updating of explicit vs. implicit evaluations via reinforcement learning: just like explicit evaluations, implicit evaluations were found to be responsive to model-free processes at baseline and following initial model-free learning with different reinforcement contingencies.…”

“…First, a large body of research has provided evidence that value representations in humans, as revealed by explicit measures of self-report, can be updated on the basis of the rewards received as a result of interacting with a given stimulus (29)(30)(31)(32)(33). However, despite a similarly large body of research investigating the effects of mere exposure (34), Pavlovian learning (35), approach-avoidance training (36), and verbal instructions (12) on implicit evaluations, to our knowledge, the effects of reinforcement learning, i.e., rewarding or punishing participants for taking actions involving motivationally relevant stimuli, on implicit evaluations has never been investigated. As such, the first goal of the present project is to establish whether implicit evaluations of novel stimuli can be effectively shifted via this form of learning.…”

Approach, Avoidance, and the Perception of Credibility

“…Because the current research investigates motor actions as an antecedent (rather than a consequence) of evaluation, research using arm flexion/extension as manipulation of affective and motivational states (i.e., action-to-affect) is more directly relevant. The published action-to-affect research largely supports the hypothesis that arm flexion induces approach motivation and that arm extension induces avoidance motivation (Cacioppo et al, 1993;Centerbar & Clore, 2006;Friedman & Förster, 2008;Slepian et al, 2012;Van Dessel et al, 2016; for an exception, see Rotteveel et al, 2015).…”