Search

Theory suggests that stimulus evaluations automatically evoke approach–avoidance behavior. However, the extent to which approach–avoidance behavior is triggered automatically is not yet clear. Furthermore, the nature of automatically triggered approach–avoidance behavior is controversial. We review research on two views on the type of approach–avoidance behavior that is triggered automatically (arm flexion/extension, distance change). Present evidence supports the distance-change view and corroborates the notion of an automatic pathway from evaluation to distance-change behavior. We discuss underlying mechanisms (direct stimulus–response links, outcome anticipations, goals) as well as implications regarding the flexibility of the evaluation–behavior link.

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.

International audience; Research suggests that affective stimuli facilitate behavior that causes a compatible change in distance (i.e., approach positive and avoid negative stimuli). In natural settings, however, behavior often causes different consequences at different points in time. It is unclear whether affective stimuli interact with immediate or ultimate action-consequences (i.e., consequences that are more removed in time). To shed light on this, we tested whether stimulus valence facilitates behavior that ultimately causes a compatible change in distance, even when this behavior immediately causes an incompatible distance change. Participants moved a manikin on a computer screen toward or away from a positive or negative word. On half of the trials, moving the manikin ultimately in one direction required an initial movement in the opposite direction. Results from two studies showed that stimulus valence facilitated ultimate-compatible distance change regardless of the initial direction. This suggests that affective stimuli facilitate behavior that is relatively farsighted.

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.

When forming impressions about other people, stereotypes about the individual's social group often influence the resulting impression. At least 2 distinguishable processes underlie stereotypic impression formation: stereotype activation and stereotype application. Most previous research has used implicit measures to assess stereotype activation and explicit measures to assess stereotype application, which has several disadvantages. The authors propose a measure of stereotypic impression formation, the stereotype misperception task (SMT), together with a multinomial model that quantitatively disentangles the contributions of stereotype activation and application to responses in the SMT. The validity of the SMT and of the multinomial model was confirmed in 5 studies. The authors hope to advance research on stereotyping by providing a measurement tool that separates multiple processes underlying impression formation. © 2012 American Psychological Association.

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.