Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information.

Abstract

The automatic processing of information was investigated, varying valence (positive vs. negative) and relevance (other-relevant traits [ORT] vs. possessor-relevant traits [PRTj; G. Peeters, 1983) of stimuli. ORTs denote unconditionally positive or negative consequences for persons in the social environment of the holder of the trait (e.g., honest, brutal) whereas PRTs denote unconditionally positive or negative consequences for the trait holder (e.g., happy, depressive). In 2 experiments using the Stroop paradigm, larger interference effects were found for ORTs than PRTs. This is due to the behavior-relatedness of ORTs. In a go/no-go lexical decision task (Experiment 3), participants either had to withdraw their finger from a pressed key (i.e., "avoid") or had to press a key (i.e., "approach") if a word was presented. Responses to negative ORTs were relatively faster in the withdraw condition, whereas positive ORTs were relatively faster in the press condition.

The late positive potential: A neural marker of the regulation of emotion-based approach-avoidance actions?

“…First, consistent with previous literature (Bamford & Ward, 2008;Chen, M and Bargh, 1999;De Houwer et al, 2001;Duckworth et al, 2002;Neumann & Strack, 2000;Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004;Solarz, 1960;Wentura et al, 2000) we see a reaction time (RT) congruency effect: participants are faster to approach than avoid pleasant emotional stimuli, but faster to avoid than approach unpleasant stimuli. This reflects the automatic predisposition to approach pleasant and avoid unpleasant stimuli, and the additional effort required to regulate these tendencies when required.…”

“…Participants have faster reaction times (RT) when performing congruent than performing incongruent actions. This confirms the automatic predisposition to approach pleasant and avoid unpleasant stimuli, and highlights the additional effort needed to regulate these tendencies when required (Bamford & Ward, 2008;Chen & Bargh, 1999;De Houwer, Crombez, Baeyens, & Hermans, 2001;Duckworth, Bargh, Garcia, & Chaiken, 2002;Krieglmeyer, De Houwer, & Deutsch, 2012;Neumann & Strack, 2000;Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004;Solarz, 1960;Wentura, Rothermund, & Bak, 2000). The difference in the speed of the response on congruent compared to the incongruent trials has been termed a congruency effect; for example a large congruency effect would be observed when comparing congruent trials with very fast responses to incongruent trials with very slow responses, whereas more similar response times for congruent and incongruent trials would represent a smaller congruency effect.…”

Anger as “seeing red”: Evidence for a perceptual association

“…We are not aware of any precedent for this finding, but it may comport with other results showing that words suggesting a more palpable threat to the self, as should be the case for anger relative to fear stimuli (Wentura, Rothermund, & Bak, 2000), are recognized faster (Wurm & Vakoch, 2000). On the other hand, there was no main effect for Font Color, F (1, 95) = 1.51, p = .22.…”

Sustained and transient modulation of performance induced by emotional picture viewing.

“…These authors concluded that just as observed for familiar stimuli (Chen & Bargh, 1999), the evaluation of novel stimuli has immediate and direct consequences for approach and avoidance behavior tendencies. In a related study by Wentura, Rothermund, and Bak (2000), subjects participated in a go/no-go lexical decision task in which they had to withdraw their finger from a pressed key ("avoid") or had to press a key ("approach") if a word was presented. Responses to negative words were relatively faster in the withdraw condition, whereas responses to positive words were relatively faster in the press condition.…”