Testing predictions of a common-coding and inferential account of Approach-avoidance training effects

Abstract

Over the past decade an increasing number of studies across a range of domains have shown that the repeated performance of approach and avoidance (AA) actions in response to a stimulus leads to changes in the evaluation of that stimulus. The dominant (motivational-systems) account in this area claims that these effects are caused by a rewiring of mental associations between stimulus representations and AA systems that evolved to regulate distances to positive and negative stimuli. In contrast, two recently forwarded alternative accounts postulate that AA effects are caused by inferences about the valence of actions and stimuli (inferential account) or a transfer of valenced action codes to stimulus representations (common-coding account). Across four experiments we set out to test these three competing accounts against one another.Experiments 1-3 illustrate that changes in stimulus evaluations can occur when people perform valenced actions that bear no relation to a distance regulation, such as moving a manikin upwards or downwards. The observed evaluative effects were dependent on the evaluative implication of the instructed movement goal rather than whether the action implied a movement towards or away from the stimuli. These results could not be explained with a rewiring of associations to motivational systems. Experiment 4 showed that changes in stimulus evaluations occurred after

How Do Actions Influence Attitudes? An Inferential Account of the Impact of Action Performance on Stimulus Evaluation

“…Our account assumes that any contextual factor that either facilitates or impedes a person’s goal to draw inferences about a relation between the performed action and valence will moderate Step 2. We therefore predict facilitation of evaluative stimulus-action effects on the basis of instructions that provide information about a relation between the performed action and valence (see Van Dessel, Hughes, De Houwer, & Smith, 2018) or when providing instructions or other incentives to retrieve such information. We also predict facilitation when participants are incentivized to attend to (a) the action (see Step 1), (b) valence in general (e.g., by making valence task relevant), or (c) a relation between the action and valence (e.g., informing participants about evaluative properties of the action).…”

“…On one hand, each of the proposed steps can be facilitated based on contextual factors that should enhance effects. For example, one assumption that we are currently investigating is whether verbally providing I AE (e.g., the inference that people typically approach positive stimuli and avoid negative stimuli) can lead to stronger AA training effects (because this should facilitate Step 2; Van Dessel, Hughes, De Houwer, & Smith, 2018). On the other hand, each of the steps can also be impeded based on contextual factors that should reduce effects.…”

“…On the other hand, each of the steps can also be impeded based on contextual factors that should reduce effects. In another study, we are investigating whether evaluative stimulus-action effects are reduced when participants are informed that inferring I SE on the basis of I AE and I SA is not in accordance with formal logical rules (which should impede Step 3; Van Dessel, Hughes, De Houwer, & Smith, 2018).…”