Recognition and Approach Responses Toward Threatening Objects

Abstract

Abstract. Previous research suggests that positive stimuli are often approached as well as recognized faster than negative stimuli. We argue that this effect does not hold if negative stimuli are associated with threat. Based on fear module theory (Öhman & Mineka, 2001(Öhman & Mineka, , 2003, we argue that individuals recognize threatening stimuli faster than positive stimuli because of a constant monitoring of the environment for threatening objects. Moreover, based on the assumption of a motivational account underlying approach-avoidance responses (Krieglmeyer & Deutsch, 2010), we assume the recognition then directly evokes a careful and slow approach of threatening objects. Applying a response time task that measures approach movement and recognition times within the same task, we found that individuals recognize threatening pictures faster than positive pictures, but approach the threatening pictures slower than the positive pictures. In this article, we hypothesize that this might not hold true when negativity is related to threat. Based on fear module theory (Öhman & Mineka, 2001(Öhman & Mineka, , 2003 and the assumption of a motivational account underlying approach-avoidance responses (Krieglmeyer & Deutsch, 2010), we assume that individuals recognize threatening stimuli faster and approach them more slowly than positive stimuli. Responses Toward Positive and Negative StimuliResearch has repeatedly shown that individuals are faster at consciously recognizing positive stimuli than negative stimuli (Bargh et al., 1992;Unkelbach et al., 2008Unkelbach et al., , 2010. For example, Bargh et al. (1992) found that positive attitude objects were evaluated more quickly than negative ones. Similarly, Unkelbach et al. (2010) found that individuals are faster at identifying positive compared to negative words. In what they referred to as the density hypothesis, the authors account for this phenomenon by arguing that positive information is more densely organized than negative information and that this increased density in turn leads to faster identification of positive stimuli.Other research suggests that individuals approach positive stimuli faster than negative stimuli (Brendl et al

What is learned in approach-avoidance tasks? On the scope and generalizability of approach-avoidance effects.

“…The assignment of colors to the approach versus avoidance movement was counterbalanced across participants. In line with previous research, the joystick response elicited a virtual movement of the picture to strengthen the approach and avoidance character of the movements (Genschow et al, 2013; Genschow, Florack, & Wänke, 2014; Wiers et al, 2010, 2011). That is, in the approach condition the pulling movement gradually increased the size of the triangles until they filled the whole screen.…”

“…The present research constitutes an integration of two research lines central to the work of both authors. While Mandy Hütter has been studying evaluative learning (e.g., Hütter et al, 2012; Hütter & Sweldens, 2018) and generalization (Hütter et al, 2014), Oliver Genschow has been investigating the predictive validity of approach–avoidance measures (Genschow et al, 2013, 2014, 2017) and the influences of color cues on psychological functioning (Genschow et al, 2012, 2015; Reutner et al, 2015). The present research complements our previous research by demonstrating (a) that stimulus attributes can acquire evaluative meaning (Hütter et al, 2014) in approach–avoidance paradigms and (b) that colors can acquire their meaning via social learning.…”

An empirical comparison of different implicit measures to predict consumer choice

“…A plausible reason may lay in our chosen consumer products (fruit vs. chocolate), which do not very much differ in valence. While past research has shown that approach-avoidance tasks are sensitive for stimuli differing in valence [ 13 – 16 , 18 , 20 ], our research indicates that such tasks might be less sensitive for stimuli that differ to a smaller degree in valence. Second, another reason for the bad predictive validity might be lack of power.…”

“…The results showed that participants moved positive stimuli faster toward their name than away from their name and vice versa for negative stimuli. Despite using a joystick to measure approach and avoidance tendencies, other researchers measured finger movements toward or away from a stimulus and found similar results (e.g., [ 13 , 17 , 20 ]).…”

The influence of threat on perceived spatial distance to out-group members

“…In line with this notion, it has been found that threatening stimuli lead to increased alertness. For example, threatening stimuli are detected and recognized faster than nonthreatening stimuli (e.g., Genschow, Florack, & Wänke, 2014;Lipp & Waters, 2007;Öhman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001;Tipples, Young, Quinlan, Broks, & Ellis, 2002). When investigating event-related brain potentials Ito and Urland (2003) found that individuals direct the attention more strongly to Black targets than to White targets and that this effect is taking place very early in time (i.e., 100 ms after stimulus onset).…”