“Science Manipulates the Things and Lives in Them”: Reconsidering Approach-Avoidance Operationalization Through a Grounded Cognition Perspective

Abstract

Approach and avoidance orientations are key elements of adaptive regulation at the evaluation-behavior interface. On the one hand, continuous evaluations of the world fuel approach-avoidance reactions as a function of the individual’s immediate environment. On the other hand, in turn these individual-environment adjustments influence evaluations. A grounded perspective of social cognition, placing the sensorimotor aspects of individual-environment interactions at the core of cognition, has much to offer for the understanding of evaluative processes. Despite the growing enthusiasm for a grounded view of cognition and action in the approach-avoidance literature, its core principles are seldom reflected at the operationalization level. In this paper, we relied on the insights of a grounded perspective to propose more encompassing operationalizations of approach-avoidance orientations and investigate their influence on evaluations. Across six studies, we varied the approach-avoidance operationalizations (upper-body incline, upper-body posture and walking steps) and incrementally considered the grounded assumptions. We failed to obtain the theorized positive effect of approach (as compared to avoidance) on evaluations. Interestingly, further exploratory analyses on two studies conducted in Virtual Reality suggested that the more participants felt being present in the situation, the more the approach-avoidance ecological actions activated the corresponding neuropsychological systems. We discuss these emergent findings in light of grounded cognition and the notion of feeling of presence.

When my actions shape your looks: Experience-based properties of approach/avoidance bias the visual representation of others.

“…Although our data might appear somehow inconsistent with recent AAT findings (e.g., Nuel et al, 2019; Van Dessel, De Houwer, Gast, et al, 2016), the most notable difference between past and present work concerns the approach/avoidance manipulation. As we argued, the VAAST maximizes what should theoretically be the most prototypical sensory information of approach/avoidance.…”

“…For instance, Kawakami et al (2007, Experiment 3) found an AAT effect independent of any semantic information and by implementing only the motor aspects of approach/avoidance actions (here, pulling/pushing a joystick toward African American/European American faces). In contrast, across six experiments, Nuel et al (2019) failed to produce AAT effects with various operationalization of approach/avoidance relying on their sensorimotor features (e.g., body posture, walking). Similarly, other authors showed that performing an AAT does not have any additional effect compared to the mere instructions of approach/avoidance (Smith et al, 2019; Van Dessel, De Houwer, Gast, et al, 2016).…”

“…Remarkably, we produced our main AAT effect several times with effect sizes varying from medium ( dz = .48 in Experiment 3B) to very large ( dz = 2.27 in Experiment 1, Part 2b, for other-relevant traits). Second, results regarding the importance of experiencing an AAT (vs. having the mere instructions) as well as the sensory(motor) aspects of approach/avoidance are rather mixed (e.g., Cacioppo et al, 1993; Kawakami et al, 2007; Kurdi & Banaji, 2017, 2019; Nuel et al, 2019; Smith et al, 2019; Van Dessel, De Houwer, Gast, et al, 2016). With our procedure, we found that both experiential and sensory aspects of approach/avoidance play a substantial role in producing the expected AAT effects (Experiments 3A–5).…”

“…The message emanating from the literature is unclear. Some experiments showed that AAT evaluative consequences result from the mere activation of sensorimotor aspects of approach/avoidance (e.g., using flexion/extension of the arm; Cacioppo et al, 1993; Kawakami et al, 2007), whereas other efforts failed to find such effect (e.g., using body posture; Nuel et al, 2019). Experiment 5 tested whether our AAT procedure with the VAAST produces an effect on the visual representation under such minimal conditions (see Rougier et al, 2018, for a similar procedure).…”

“…Still, the fact that AAT experiments relied on nonprototypical/too subtle sensory information (Nuel et al, 2019; Van Dessel, De Houwer, Gast, et al, 2016) or on more symbolic approach/avoidance actions (Smith et al, 2019) may account for these inconsistencies. If the visual information associated with moving forward/backward is the most prototypical of approach/avoidance, this information should be of great importance in producing AAT effects.…”