Search

There is inconsistent evidence as to whether angry faces evoke approach or avoidance tendencies. The present research sought to resolve this debate. We suggest that approach–avoidance movements can serve various goals (e.g., affiliation, aggression). Furthermore, we assume that these goals determine the effect of angry faces on approach–avoidance tendencies. In particular, angry faces communicate aggressive intentions and may therefore evoke aggressive tendencies in the perceiver. Thus, angry faces should trigger approach only when it serves aggression but not when it serves affiliation. Three studies showed that angry faces facilitated approach, when the behavior was represented as aggressive approach, but not when it was represented as peaceful approach. Furthermore, when approach was represented as peaceful approach and, hence, aggression was not an available option, angry faces facilitated avoidance. In sum, angry faces can evoke approach or avoidance, depending on the goals associated with these behaviors.

Theories from diverse areas of psychology assume that affective stimuli facilitate approach and avoidance behavior because they elicit motivational orientations that prepare the organism for appropriate responses. Recent evidence casts serious doubt on this assumption. Instead of motivational orientations, evaluative-coding mechanisms may be responsible for the effect of stimulus valence on approach-avoidance responses. Three studies tested contrasting predictions derived from these two accounts. Results supported motivational theories, as stimulus valence facilitated compatible approach-avoidance responses even though participants had no intention to approach or to avoid the stimuli, and the valence of the response labels was dissociated from the approach and avoidance movements (Study 1). Stimulus valence also facilitated compatible approach-avoidance responses when participants were not required to process the valence of the stimuli (Studies 2a and 2b). These findings are at odds with the evaluative-coding account and support the notion of a unique, automatic link between the perception of valence and approach-avoidance behavior.

The present study investigated how aggressive reactions to frustration are influenced by attributional processes. In particular, we examined how the information that another person did not intend a frustration affects anger and aggression. Previous research was inconclusive if attribution to unintentionality decreases anger and aggressive impulses or if it increases the control of aggressive impulses resulting in a selective decrease of aggressive reactions that are controllable. To test these assumptions, two thirds of participants were frustrated by negative evaluations that were paired with aversive sounds from an ostensible team partner. The remaining participants received positive evaluations that were paired with pleasant sounds. Then, half of the frustrated participants obtained a message suggesting that their partner had confused the response scale and had actually meant to deliver an opposite evaluation. This apologizing information was effective in decreasing subsequent aggressive behavior but not in reducing anger as assessed by an implicit measure. This finding is in line with the notion that attribution to unintentionality leads to control of aggressive impulses. We conclude that such attributions influence aggressive behavior mainly via reflective pathways, while impulsive processes remain largely unaffected.