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

Abstract

Previous research has shown that approaching a stimulus makes it more positive, while avoiding a stimulus makes it more negative. The present research demonstrates that approach–avoidance behaviors have the potential to charge stimulus attributes such as color with evaluative meaning. This evaluation carries over to other stimuli with that feature. We address the latter point by assessing the influence of colors that were approached or avoided on the perceived attractiveness of persons wearing those colors. We show that wearing a certain color makes people appear more attractive when this color is associated with approach rather than avoidance. In line with a self-perception account of these effects, we obtained approach–avoidance effects on stimulus attributes only when participants carried out approach–avoidance behaviors toward these colors or imagined doing so. This set of experiments adds to the evaluative learning literature by demonstrating approach–avoidance effects on stimulus attributes and that these effects carry over to new classes of stimuli and new tasks. Moreover, we systematically investigated boundary conditions for these effects. Finally, with this research we introduce an ontogenetic perspective to research into colors and their influence on psychological functioning.

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

“…Our results are also consistent with previous work showing that AATs can bias the evaluation of the stimuli (e.g., Huijding et al, 2009;Kawakami et al, 2007;Van Dessel et al, 2015;Woud et al, 2008; but see Vandenbosch & De Houwer, 2011). However, the present efforts extend these findings in two ways: first, by showing that an AAT can also distort the visual representation of faces even when the measure does not prime participants toward an evaluative bias (e.g., with valenced response options; Hütter & Genschow, 2019;Woud et al, 2008Woud et al, , 2011. Second, we extended the findings by showing for the first time that AAT effects can go beyond evaluative consequences and apply on physical features that are specific to the approach/avoidance actions that participants performed.…”

“…Moreover, consequences of AATs on evaluation have also been shown on various direct or indirect measures (evaluative priming task, Fazio et al, 1995; Implicit Association Test, Greenwald et al, 1998; self-report—see also investigations on behavioral consequences—Kawakami et al, 2007; Wiers et al, 2010). Recent work even revealed that AAT effects also show on specific attributes of the approached/avoided stimuli (color) such that these attributes acquire an evaluative meaning (Hütter & Genschow, 2019). Alongside other kinds of paradigms (e.g., evaluative conditioning; Baeyens et al, 1992), AATs thus seem to be promising tools to create or change evaluations.…”

Hold It Right There!

“…Further research should address this point. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the current findings are consistent with recent ones showing that the positive influence of approach is not clear when individuals perform an action (i.e., moving a joystick) that brings the stimulus closer (Hütter & Genschow, 2020). Moreover, the replicated approach-aversion effect should alert researchers not to use feedback suggesting that others are moving toward participants in approach-avoidance trainings (see also Krishna & Eder, 2018; Van Dessel et al, 2018).…”

“…In these studies, the influence of approach behaviors on evaluations was investigated solely from the perspective of the interaction partner displaying these behaviors (but see Hütter & Genschow, 2020; Van Dessel et al, 2018). The fact that the literature focuses mainly on the behavior emitter may be due to the core idea that the self is the steering force behind the enactment of approach-avoidance behaviors (Robinson et al, 2014).…”

Bridging the gap between autonomous and predetermined paradigms: The role of sampling in evaluative learning.

“…For example, participants trained to approach math-related stimuli showed more positive attitudes toward math than those trained to avoid math-related stimuli (Kawakami et al, 2008). Similar demonstrations stem from numerous basic and applied paradigms (e.g., Hütter & Genschow, 2020; Van Dessel et al, 2015; Wiers et al, 2011). From these findings, it can be expected that the decision to sample a stimulus can increase the evaluation of that stimulus, while the decision to refrain from sampling a stimulus might decrease the agent’s liking for that stimulus.…”