The Influence of Approach and Avoidance Cues on Attentional Flexibility

Abstract

In two experiments, we tested the prediction that rudimentary approach, relative to avoidance, motivational cues bolster attentional flexibility. This prediction was assessed using manipulations of both exteroceptive and interoceptive motivational cues and with two different measures of attentional flexibility, the Stroop task and the 2-back task. Results were consistent with predictions, suggesting that approach, relative to avoidance, motivational cues facilitate task performance by enhancing the ability to shift the focus of attention in response to task demands.KEY WORDS: motivation; attention; flexibility.In the continuing study of the relationship between emotion and cognition, one of the most intriguing areas of investigation has been that examining the manner in which affective states influence cognitive flexibility, the ability to remain open to new ideas and to think "outside the box." Here, the available evidence has convergently supported the notion that approach-related affective states (e.g., happiness; Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000) significantly enhance the flexibility of cognitive processing across myriad domains of problem solving. For instance, Isen and her associates (see Isen, 2000, for a review) have adduced considerable evidence that happy mood states bolster creativity, including the ability to solve insight problems (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987) and the tendency to generate unusual free associations (Isen, Johnson, Mertz, & Robinson, 1985; see also, Hirt, 1 70Friedman and Förster Melton, McDonald, & Harackiewicz, 1996;Hirt, Levine, McDonald, Melton, & Martin, 1997). In a related vein, Isen and her colleagues (Isen & Daubman, 1984; see also, Isen, Niedenthal, & Cantor, 1992) have also found that happy moods increase the propensity to view unusual exemplars (e.g., "camel") as bona fide members of a given category (e.g., "modes of transportation"), that positive affect increases variety-seeking (i.e., reduces perseverance) among safe, enjoyable alternatives (Kahn & Isen, 1993) and that transient positive moods bolster openmindedness (i.e., reduce defensiveness) in decision making (e.g., Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1997; see also, Aspinwall, 1998). Isen (1987) has accounted for such findings by positing that approach-related (i.e., positive) affective states, such as happiness, engender a "complex cognitive context" that enables concurrent processing of more, and more diverse, material (see also Derryberry and Tucker, 1994;Fredrickson, 2001). In light of this prodigious body of findings, the question arises as to whether approach-related states enhance not only cognitive flexibility, but attentional flexibility as well, defined as the ability to adaptably shift focus among cognitive operations using executive control (see e.g., Posner, 1982, Shallice, 1988. Following Isen's (1987) reasoning, approach-related states may facilitate attentional shifting because they render a more extensive body of cognitive material accessible, thereby providing a greater number of salient targets (e.g....

Too close for comfort: Stimulus valence moderates the influence of motivational orientation on distance perception.

“…A maze task developed by Friedman and Förster (2005a;see also: Krpan & Schnall, 2014) was used to induce motivational orientation through cognitive activation of approach and avoidance behaviors, and valenced photographs were selected from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang et al, 2005). The photographs were used because Gable and Harmon-Jones (2008) suggested that appetitive positive stimuli (e.g.…”

“…Wells & Petty, 1980;Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988;Duclos et al, 1989;Cacioppo et al, 1993;Stepper & Strack, 1993;Förster & Strack, 1996, Friedman, & Förster, 2002, 2005aCenterbar & Clore, 2006). Indeed, the compatibility hypothesis further suggests that evoking valence-compatible motivational orientation facilitates how people process and respond to valenced stimuli compared to incompatibility (e.g.…”

Approach/Avoidance Orientations Affect Self-construal and Identification with In-group

“…In Studies 1 and 4, participants will be induced into an approach or an avoidance motivation orientation by assuming a certain arm position (Cacioppo, Priester, & Berntson, 1993; Förster & Strack, 1997, 1998; Neumann & Strack, 2000; Priester, Cacioppo, & Petty, 1996). In Studies 2 and 3, participants will, instead, solve an approach or an avoidance maze (Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2005). …”

“…An approach orientation was activated by having participants lead the mouse to a piece of cheese lying at the exit, and an avoidance orientation was activated by having them to lead the mouse to the mouse-hole, in order to escape the danger of an owl hovering over the maze (Friedman & Förster, 2001, 2005). Immediately after solving the maze, participants completed the Twenty Statements Task.…”

The influence of motivational and mood states on visual attention: A quantification of systematic differences and casual changes in subjects' focus of attention

“…Several studies have examined the influence on cognitive performance caused by manipulations of promotion and prevention cues in different contexts (e.g., Friedman & Förster, 2001;Roese, Hur, & Pennington, 1999;Seibt & Förster, 2004). Among others, an influence of cognitive performance caused by manipulations of promotion or prevention cues has been documented for attention-related tasks (e.g., Derryberry & Tucker, 1994;Easterbrook, 1959;Friedman & Förster, 2005). Different research provides evidence that a prevention motivation results in better performance on detail-oriented tasks, whereas a promotion motivation results in better performance on global-oriented tasks (Derryberry & Reed, 1998;Förster & Higgins, 2005;Förster et al, 2006).…”