Contrasting motivational orientation and evaluative coding accounts: on the need to differentiate the effectors of approach/avoidance responses.

Julia Kozlik,Ljubica Lozo,Roland Neumann

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00563

Julia Kozlik, Ljubica Lozo + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00563

Copy DOI

Abstract

Several emotion theorists suggest that valenced stimuli automatically trigger motivational orientations and thereby facilitate corresponding behavior. Positive stimuli were thought to activate approach motivational circuits which in turn primed approach-related behavioral tendencies whereas negative stimuli were supposed to activate avoidance motivational circuits so that avoidance-related behavioral tendencies were primed (motivational orientation account). However, recent research suggests that typically observed affective stimulus–response compatibility phenomena might be entirely explained in terms of theories accounting for mechanisms of general action control instead of assuming motivational orientations to mediate the effects (evaluative coding account). In what follows, we explore to what extent this notion is applicable. We present literature suggesting that evaluative coding mechanisms indeed influence a wide variety of affective stimulus–response compatibility phenomena. However, the evaluative coding account does not seem to be sufficient to explain affective S–R compatibility effects. Instead, several studies provide clear evidence in favor of the motivational orientation account that seems to operate independently of evaluative coding mechanisms. Implications for theoretical developments and future research designs are discussed.

Highlights

The motivational orientation account states that valenced stimuli automatically activate corresponding motivational circuits: positive stimuli trigger approach motivation and negative stimuli trigger avoidance motivation (Davidson et al, 1990; Gray, 1990; Lang et al, 1990; Strack and Deutsch, 2004). These motivational orientations in turn trigger corresponding behavioral tendencies resulting in a close link between evaluative processes and approach/avoidance response tendencies
The motivational orientation account has recently been challenged by authors arguing that the theory of event coding (TEC) might explain affective S–R compatibility effects (Lavender and Hommel, 2007; Eder and Rothermund, 2008)
There is substantial evidence suggesting that the TEC is an economical model to explain affective S–R compatibility effects when examining manual and presumably whole-body responses, as well

Summary

Motivational Orientation Account

Emanating from the principle of hedonism, approaching pleasure and avoiding pain are conceived as the most fundamental motivators of human beings (Davidson et al, 1990; Gray, 1990; Lang et al, 1990). Behavior which assumes that it is not a particular muscle movement that is activated by valenced stimuli but rather a certain motor response that contextually effectuates approach or avoidance (Markman and Brendl, 2005; Seibt et al, 2008) In this sense, the distance regulation hypothesis implies that the link between evaluation and behavior is flexible as a function of contextual factors whereas the specific muscle activation hypothesis assumes the link to be inflexible. Markman and Brendl (2005) as well as Seibt et al (2008) convincingly demonstrated that the direction of the affective S–R compatibility effect is affected by the reference frame induced via task instruction In both the Solarz (1960) and the Chen and Bargh (1999) studies participants were required to move a lever toward or away from themselves (i.e., subject-based instructions). As perceivable action effects seem to play a crucial role in automatic activations of approach-avoidance behavior Van Dantzig et al (2008) proposed to conceive approach- and avoidance-related action tendencies as “flexible action plans that are represented in terms of their effects” (p. 1298)

Evaluative Coding Account

Conclusion