Grab it or not? Measuring avoidance of spiders with touchscreen-based hand movements

Rinck, Mike; Dapprich, Anna L.; Lender, Anja; Kahveci, Sercan; Blechert, Jens

doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2021.101670

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, these did not correct their approach tendencies using control stimuli and thus conflated approach-avoidance tendencies with main effects of movement direction (seeLoijen et al, 2020;Zech et al, 2020). As these scores are not stimulus-specific and necessarily more reliable (for a comparison see for exampleKahveci et al, 2020;Rinck et al, 2021), we do not consider them in this review, but include them in the supplementary materials.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Test-retest reliability of a smartphone-based approach-avoidance task: Effects of retest period, stimulus type, and demographics

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The approach-avoidance task (AAT) is an implicit task that measures people’s behavioral tendencies to approach or avoid stimuli in the environment. In recent years, it has been used successfully to help explain a variety of health problems (e.g., addictions and phobias). Unfortunately, more recent AAT studies have failed to replicate earlier promising findings. One explanation for these replication failures could be that the AAT does not reliably measure approach-avoidance tendencies. Here, we first review existing literature on the reliability of various versions of the AAT. Next, we examine the AAT’s reliability in a large and diverse sample (N = 1077; 248 of whom completed all sessions). Using a smartphone-based, mobile AAT, we measured participants’ approach-avoidance tendencies eight times over a period of seven months (one measurement per month) in two distinct stimulus sets (happy/sad expressions and disgusting/neutral stimuli). The mobile AAT’s split-half reliability was adequate for face stimuli (r = .85), but low for disgust stimuli (r = .72). Its test–retest reliability based on a single measurement was poor for either stimulus set (all ICC1s < .3). Its test–retest reliability based on the average of all eight measurements was moderately good for face stimuli (ICCk = .73), but low for disgust stimuli (ICCk = .5). Results suggest that single-measurement AATs could be influenced by unexplained temporal fluctuations of approach-avoidance tendencies. These fluctuations could be examined in future studies. Until then, this work suggests that future research using the AAT should rely on multiple rather than single measurements.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Test-retest reliability of a smartphone-based approach-avoidance task: Effects of retest period, stimulus type, and demographics

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We suggest that the RT definition be chosen on the basis of theoretical considerations and previous research in a specific field. As we found in our own previous research with touchscreen-based AATs, approach-avoidance biases may express themselves primarily at the movement planning stage, such as when the target stimuli are foods (Kahveci et al, 2021;Van Alebeek et al, 2021), or during movement execution, such as when the target stimuli are spiders (Rinck et al, 2021). Since very few studies have explored the outcomes of multiple RT definitions (see also : Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004;Solarz, 1960), we recommend that this be done more often in future research.…”

Section: Rt Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…For the irrelevant-feature AAT involving spiders, we used data from a single study fully described in Rinck, Dapprich, Lender, Kahveci, and Blechert (2021). In short, participants performed an irrelevant-feature Go-NoGo AAT on a touchscreen where they were shown images of 16 spiders, 16 leaves, and and 16 butterflies.…”

Section: Description Of the Examined Datasets And Their Criterion Val...mentioning

confidence: 99%

How pre-processing decisions affect the reliability and validity of the Approach-Avoidance Task: Evidence from simulations and multiverse analyses with six datasets

Kahveci¹,

Rinck²,

Alebeek³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reaction time (RT) data are often pre-processed before analysis by rejecting outliers and errors and aggregating the data. In stimulus-response compatibility paradigms such as the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT), researchers often decide how to pre-process the data without an empirical basis, leading to the use of methods that may hurt rather than help data quality. To provide this empirical basis, we investigated how different pre-processing methods affect the reliability and validity of this task. Our literature review revealed 108 different pre-processing pipelines among 163 examined studies. Using simulated and real datasets, we found that validity and reliability were negatively affected by retaining error trials, by replacing error RTs with the mean RT plus a penalty, by retaining outliers, and by removing the highest and lowest sample-wide RT percentiles as outliers. We recommend removing error trials and rejecting RTs deviating more than 2 or 3 SDs from the participant mean. Bias scores were more reliable but not more valid if computed with means or D-scores rather than with medians. Bias scores were less accurate if based on averaging multiple conditions together, as with compatibility scores, rather being than based on separate averages per condition, as with double-difference scores. We call upon the field to drop the suboptimal practices to improve the psychometric properties of the AAT. We also call for similar investigations in related RT-based cognitive bias measures such as the implicit association task, as their commonly accepted pre-processing practices currently involve many of the aforementioned discouraged methods.

show abstract

“…While self-report measures are used to measure conscious aspects of AA motivation, behavioural tasks allow one to investigate the automatic and immediate influence of AA tendencies on the execution of behaviour (Rinck et al, 2021). One of the most frequently used paradigms to study automatic AA tendencies is the so-called approach-avoidance task (AAT).…”

Section: Approach and Avoidance Tendenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual-feature AAT: Combining relevant- and irrelevant-feature approach-avoidance tasks

Illgner¹,

Kahveci²,

Rinck³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT) is used to measure and modify approach and avoidance (AA) tendencies which are important in various mental disorders. To date, 46 participants were either instructed to move stimuli in the AAT depending on the content/valence, or depending on a feature that is unrelated to the content and valence. Both ways of instructing participants have fundamental disadvantages that may reduce the validity of the task or the probability of finding existing effects. In this study, both instructions were combined for the first time, with the goal of minimising the downsides of the conventional AATs. Hence, participants had to approach or avoid images depending on both the content of the images (spider, butterfly) and depending on a content-irrelevant feature (portrait vs. landscape format). In an online study, we found that this new dual-feature AAT showed the expected compatibility effect for errors: Responses compatible with AA tendencies were executed more correctly than incompatible responses. Results regarding the RT outcome measures were less clear-cut and depended on data pre-processing decisions. Moreover, the size of the observed compatibility effects was not related to the participants' level of spider fear. In sum, we found a first indication that the dual-feature AAT could be an alternative to previous types of standard-instructions AATs.

show abstract

Grab it or not? Measuring avoidance of spiders with touchscreen-based hand movements

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

Test-retest reliability of a smartphone-based approach-avoidance task: Effects of retest period, stimulus type, and demographics

Test-retest reliability of a smartphone-based approach-avoidance task: Effects of retest period, stimulus type, and demographics

How pre-processing decisions affect the reliability and validity of the Approach-Avoidance Task: Evidence from simulations and multiverse analyses with six datasets

Dual-feature AAT: Combining relevant- and irrelevant-feature approach-avoidance tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About