Conflict in a word‐based approach‐avoidance task is stronger with positive words

Abstract

Background Valence and motivational direction are linked. We approach good things and avoid bad things, and experience overriding these links as conflicting. Positive valence is more consistently linked with approach than negative valence is linked with avoidance. Therefore, avoiding positive stimuli should produce greater behavioral and neural signs of conflict than approaching negative stimuli. Methods In the present event‐related potential study, we tested this assumption by contrasting positive and negative conflict. We used the manikin task, in which we read positive and negative words that they needed to approach and avoid. Results Consistent with our prediction, positive conflict prolonged reaction times more than negative conflict did. A late (500–1000 ms following word onset) event‐related potential that we identified as the Conflict slow potential, was only sensitive to positive conflict. Conclusion The results of this study support the notion that avoiding positive stimuli is more conflicting than approaching negative stimuli. The fact that the conflict slow potential is typically sensitive to response conflict rather than stimulus conflict suggests that the manikin task primarily requires people to override prepotent responses rather than to identify conflicting stimuli. Thus, the present findings also shed light on the psychological processes subserving conflict resolution in the manikin task.

Exploring Automatic Approach-Avoidance Tendencies: The Impact of Self-Relevant Social Feedback on Behavior

“…Interestingly, when examining the congruency effect for positive and negative feedback separately, we found that the congruence effect for positive feedback is greater than that of negative social feedback. This pronounced congruence effect in response to positive feedback is consistent with previous findings reporting stronger stimulus-response compatibility effects with positive stimuli (e.g., positive words, happy faces, appetitive food, and butterflies) than with negative stimuli (negative words, angry faces, spoiled food, and spiders) in an approachavoidance task (Klackl et al, 2023;Stins et al, 2011). Positive stimuli typically elicit approach behaviors, whereas negative stimuli can trigger a variety of defensive actions including avoidance (e.g., freezing, rejecting) and approach behavior (e.g., anger) (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009;Lang et al, 1997).…”

“…A seminal work by Solarz (1960) using implicit AAT first demonstrated that the valence of words impact approach/avoidance behavior. This finding has been replicated across countless studies using stimuli such as attitude objects (Chen & Bargh, 1999), adjectives (Seibt et al, 2008), and abstract nouns (Citron et al, 2016;Klackl et al, 2023).…”

“…First, the congruency effect (CE) was calculated separately for positive and negative evaluations (Positive = [approach-positive] -[avoidance-positive]; Negative = [avoidancenegative] -[approach-negative]) (Klackl et al, 2023;Saraiva et al, 2013). Second, mean RTs were calculated for each action (pull vs. push) X valence (positive, neutral, negative) combination.…”