Regulating cognitive control through approach-avoidance motor actions

Koch, Severine; Holland, Rob W.; Knippenberg, Ad van

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.014

Cited by 89 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…RTs were shorter with the mapping positive-toward/negative-away than with the opposite mapping, which the authors attributed to the ''toward" approach response being compatible with ''good" and the ''away" avoidance response with ''bad". Many other findings have been interpreted similarly in terms of approach-avoidance motor actions (e.g., Koch, Holland, & van Knippenberg, 2008).…”

Section: Spatial and Affective Compatibilitymentioning

confidence: 82%

“Mother nature doesn’t have a bullet with your name on it”: Coding with reference to one’s name or object location?

Proctor

Zhang

2010

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Spatial and Affective Compatibilitymentioning

confidence: 82%

“Mother nature doesn’t have a bullet with your name on it”: Coding with reference to one’s name or object location?

Proctor

Zhang

2010

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Somewhat at odds with the findings just reported is a line of research that links avoidance-related states to a construct related to cognitive flexibility, namely cognitive control (Koch, Holland, Hengstler, & van Knippenberg, 2009;Koch, Holland, & van Knippenberg, 2008). Cognitive control is a complex construct that involves (a)…”

Section: Affective States and Approach Vs Avoidance Orientations As mentioning

confidence: 89%

Suspicious spirits, flexible minds: When distrust enhances creativity.

Mayer¹,

Mussweiler²

2011

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intuitively, as well as in light of prior research, distrust and creativity appear incompatible. The social consequences of distrust include reluctance to share information, a quality detrimental to creativity in social settings. At the same time, the cognitive concomitants of distrust bear resemblance to creative cognition: Distrust seems to foster thinking about nonobvious alternatives to potentially deceptive appearances. These cognitive underpinnings of distrust hold the provocative implication that distrust may foster creativity. Mirroring these contradictory findings, we suggest that the social versus cognitive consequences of distrust have diverging implications for creativity. We address this question in Study 1 by introducing private/public as a moderating variable for effects of distrust on creativity. Consistent with distrust's social consequences, subliminal distrust (vs. trust) priming had detrimental effects on creative generation presumed to be public. Consistent with distrust's cognitive consequences, though, an opposite tendency emerged in private. Study 2 confirmed a beneficial effect of distrust on private creative generation with a different priming method and pointed to cognitive flexibility as the mediating process. Studies 3 and 4 showed increased category inclusiveness versus increased remote semantic spread after distrust priming, consistent with enhanced cognitive flexibility as a consequence of distrust. Taken together, these results provide evidence for the creativity-enhancing potential of distrust and suggest cognitive flexibility as its underlying mechanism.

show abstract

“…The faster overall RTs in the fellow as compared to the partner group, rather suggest social facilitation in the presence of a fellow peer. It is conceivable that the social-evaluative context with a fellow student (who is less familiar than the own partner) represents a more aversive situation and therefore is rather associated with avoidance motivation which is known to improve performance in cognitive control tasks (e.g., Koch, Holland, & Knippenberg, 2008;Koch, Holland, Hengstler, & Knippenberg, 2009). This argument gains further support from the fact, that this main eVect of social role only occurred in Block 2 where the evaluation task tackled a self-relevant topic but not in Block 1.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How the social-evaluative context modulates processes of cognitive control

Dreisbach

Böttcher

2010

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive control enables intelligent systems to select relevant information in the face of distracting information. The aim of the research presented here was to investigate the influence of the social-evaluative context on processes of cognitive control. Female participants had to perform the Erikson flanker task with each trial being preceded by a photograph of an attractive woman or a beautiful landscape. Concurrently, another person (partner or fellow student) either evaluated the attractiveness of the pictures of the women or the beauty of the landscapes. Participants showed increased flanker interference on trials following the presentation of pictures of attractive women, but only, if these were concurrently evaluated by another person. By contrast, in the control conditions (social presence without concurrent picture evaluation, or picture evaluation without social presence) no such effect occurred. That is, the concurrent evaluation task selectively increased distractibility presumably due to the affective reaction to the social-evaluative context.

show abstract

Regulating cognitive control through approach-avoidance motor actions

Cited by 89 publications

References 58 publications

“Mother nature doesn’t have a bullet with your name on it”: Coding with reference to one’s name or object location?

“Mother nature doesn’t have a bullet with your name on it”: Coding with reference to one’s name or object location?

Suspicious spirits, flexible minds: When distrust enhances creativity.

How the social-evaluative context modulates processes of cognitive control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About