Approach-avoidance Distinction Research Articles

Investigating the impact of Internet of Things services from a smartphone app on grocery shopping

This study investigates the impact of Internet of Things (IoT) services from a smartphone app in a retail grocery shopping situation. It examines four variables, namely price, expiry date, quality indicators and offers. All four variables were examined in relation to two levels; traditional information and IoT services. A scenario was arranged whereby 226 participants were to purchase, among other products, fresh salmon in a grocery store using the store's smartphone app. Findings from a conjoint study show that the following IoT services; “updated expiry date”, “aggregated national customer experience index”, and “personalized offer based on product in the basket” evoked the approach and abated avoidance tendencies to explore the smartphone app, while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of buying based on information from the app. The IoT service “Real-time price” had a varied impact on participant approach-avoidance tendencies to interact with the app. Scenario simulation analysis shows that some IoT services can be a deal-breaker in a competitive grocery market. Consequently, analyzing the impact of IoT services through the lenses of approach-avoidance distinction and choice indication can help retail grocery managers develop more effective marketing strategies that deliver convenience to the consumers.

Back to the roots: The 2 × 2 standpoints and standards achievement goal model

In the original dichotomous conceptualization of achievement goals, mastery and performance goals contained two competence foci: standpoints on competence and standards of competence evaluation. Conceptually and operationally, this feature of the original model has been overlooked. The present research integrates this original conceptualization with the approach-avoidance distinction, resulting in the 2 × 2 standpoints and standards (SaS) model. In Study 1, we develop and test the psychometric properties of a questionnaire designed to assess these goals. In Study 2, we examine the predictive utility of these goals in the classroom context, investigating exam performance, intrinsic motivation, test anxiety, absorption, energy, and affect using a sample of 324 university students. Results from the studies support the utility of the 2 × 2 SaS model and questionnaire. We discuss our findings with regard to implications for teachers and parents, links to the emerging goal complex literature, and future research possibilities afforded by this new (grounded in old) approach.

Editorial: Individual differences: from neurobiological bases to new insight on approach and avoidance behavior.

Editorial: Individual differences: from neurobiological bases to new insight on approach and avoidance behavior.

Evidence for individual differences in regulatory focus in rats, Rattus norvegicus.

Regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) builds on the classic approach-avoidance distinction by identifying two important approach orientations: the promotion focus (approaching gains and attainment) and the prevention focus (approaching nonlosses and safety). Though individual differences in regulatory focus have been widely studied in human psychology, it is unknown if such differences exist in other species. To explore this possibility, we designed a series of tests for laboratory rats, paralleling human regulatory focus research on risk taking. In home-cage tests, rats (N = 23) were given an opportunity to prevent a loss by burying a noxious novel object. In solitary tests in a novel enclosure, the same rats had the opportunity to pursue gains (food rewards) and/or safety (darkness). Rats demonstrated stable individual differences on both tests (p's < .001). Complementing the human research, duration of time spent with the noxious novel object was predicted by an individual's tendency to pursue safety (p < .01) and not by the tendency to pursue gains (p > .8). Some aspects of these results were compatible with alternative approaches, such as the bold-shy axis and "if-then" personality profiles (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Regulatory focus theory, however, was uniquely able to predict the overall pattern, which may be an indication that it could contribute to future research in animal personality, motivation, and welfare.

Dynamical patterns of human postural responses to emotional stimuli

AbstractErotic scenes and images of mutilated bodies are emotional stimuli that have repeatedly shown to evoke specific neurophysiological responses associated with enhanced attention and perceptual processing. Remarkably however, only a handful of studies have investigated human motor reactions to emotional activation as a direct index of physical approximation or withdrawal. Given the inconclusive results of these studies, the approach-avoidance distinction, one of the most salient concepts in human motivational research, remains a broadly exploited hypothesis that has never been empirically demonstrated. Here, we investigate postural responses elicited by discrete emotional stimuli in healthy young adults. We discover that both positive and negative affective pictures induce a significant posterior deviation from postural baseline equilibrium. Further, we find that neutral pictures also evoke posterior deviation, although with a less pronounced amplitude. Exploring the dynamical evolution of postural responses to emotional pictures at high temporal resolution, we uncover a characteristic profile that remains stable for stimuli from all three affective categories. In contrast, the postural response amplitude is modulated by the emotional content of the stimulus. Our observations do not support the interpretation of postural responses to affective picture-viewing as approach-avoidance behavior. Instead, our findings indicate the involvement of a previously unrecognized motor component of the physiological mechanism underlying human orienting responses.

Avoiding the approach trap: A response bias theory of the emotional Stroop effect.

In the laboratory, people classify the color of emotion-laden words slower than they do that of neutral words, the emotional Stroop effect. Outside the laboratory, people react to features of emotion-laden stimuli or threatening stimuli faster than they do to those of neutral stimuli. A possible resolution to the conundrum implicates the counternatural response demands imposed in the laboratory that do not, as a rule, provide for avoidance in the face of threat. In 2 experiments we show that when such an option is provided in the laboratory, the response latencies follow those observed in real life. These results challenge the dominant attention theory offered for the emotional Stroop effect because this theory is indifferent to the vital approach-avoidance distinction.

Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation

Recent critiques of moral psychology and the contemporary culture wars highlight the need for a better understanding of diverse moral perspectives. A model of moral motives is proposed. The fundamental approach–avoidance distinction in motivation is crossed with self-other focus to create four moral motives: Self-Restraint (avoidance-self), Social Order (avoidance-other), Self-Reliance (approach-self), and Social Justice (approach-other). Three studies explored these motives in the context of political orientation. Overall, political conservatism was associated with avoidance motives and liberalism with approach motives. Approach–avoidance motives were also associated with distinct patterns of results regarding authoritarianism, social dominance, and positions on contemporary social issues. Responses of campus political groups demonstrated the utility of the moral motives in providing a more nuanced view of politics that also takes into account the model’s second dimension, for an emphasis on Self focus (personality responsibility) versus Other focus (social responsibility) further distinguished between conservative groups. Moral and political implications are discussed.

The Hierarchical Model of Approach-Avoidance Motivation

Approach motivation is the energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior toward, positive stimuli (objects, events, possibilities), whereas avoidance motivation is the energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior away from, negative stimuli (objects, events, possibilities). In this article, I provide a brief overview of this distinction between approach and avoidance motivation. In addition, I provide a brief overview of a model of motivation in which this approach-avoidance distinction plays an integral role—the hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation.

The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework.

Two studies examined hypotheses drawn from a proposed modification of the social-cognitive model of achievement motivation that centered on the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Implicit theories of ability were shown to be direct predictors of performance attainment and intrinsic motivation, and the goals of the 2 x 2 framework were shown to account for these direct relations. Perceived competence was shown to be a direct predictor of achievement goals, not a moderator of relations implicit theory or achievement goal effects. The results highlight the utility of attending to the approach-avoidance distinction in conceptual models of achievement motivation and are fully in line with the hierarchical model of achievement motivation.

ACHIEVEMENT GOALS AND THE HIERARCHICAL MODEL OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION

The achievement goal approach has attained prominence in the achievement motivation literature and has produced a valuable empirical yield. However, the precise nature of the achievement goal construct is in need of scrutiny, as is the issue of how achievement goals and their antecedents combine to produce competence-based self-regulation. In this article, we address these important conceptual issues in the context of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. The approach–avoidance distinction, which has been an integral part of the achievement motivation literature since its inception, is highlighted throughout.

Approach and avoidance motivation.

In this article, we introduce this special issue by establishing a conceptual foundation for the distinction between approach and avoidance motivation. We do so primarily by explicating several reasons why the approach–avoidance distinction should be viewed as fundamental and basic to the study of human behavior. In addition, we compare and contrast the “approach–avoidance” designation with other designations that have been used in the motivational literature to cover the same or similar conceptual ground. Finally, we conclude by briefly overviewing the other contributions to this special issue, specifically highlighting how they make use of the approach–avoidance distinction.

Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals

Achievement goal researchers and theorists have relied primarily on the distinction between performance goals and mastery goals in differentiating competence-based strivings. In this article, an argument is made for incorporating the distinction between approach and avoidance motivation into the performance-mastery dichotomy. Historical, theoretical, and empirical reasons for attending to the approach-avoidance distinction are offered, and a revised, trichotomous framework of achievement goals comprising mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals is described and reviewed. This trichotomous framework is discussed in the broader context of a hierarchical model of achievement motivation that attends to the motivational foundation underlying achievement goals per se. Avenues for further theoretical development are also overviewed, including consideration of a mastery-avoidance goal construct.

Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis.

nMost contemporary achievement goal conceptualizations consist of a performance goal versus mastery goal dichotomy. The present research offers an alternative framework by partitioning the performance goal orientation into independent approach and avoidance motivational orientations. Two experiments investigated the predictive utility of the proposed approach-avoidance achievement goal conceptualization in the intrinsic motivation domain. Results from both experiments supported the proposed framework; only performance goals grounded in the avoidance of failure undermined intrinsic motivation. Task involvement was validated as a mediator of the observed effects on intrinsic motivation. Ramifications for the achievement goal approach to achievement motivation and future research avenues are discussed. Achievement motivation theorists focus their research attention on a particular class of behaviors, those involving competence. Individuals may aspire to attain competence or may strive to avoid incompetence, and this approach-avoidance distinction was explicitly incorporated into the earliest achievement motivation conceptualizations. Two independent motivational orientations, the desire for and the desire to avoid failure, were identified by Lewin and colleagues as critical determinants of aspiration behavior (Hoppe, cited in Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, & Sears, 1944). In his nascent achievement motivation theory, McClelland ( 1951 ) proposed that there are at least two kinds of achievement motivation, one of which appears to be oriented around avoiding failure and the other around the more positive goal of attaining success (p. 202).