Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation.

Q1 Social Sciences Open Mind Pub Date : 2024-07-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00151
Zhang Chen, Pieter Van Dessel
{"title":"Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation.","authors":"Zhang Chen, Pieter Van Dessel","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Executing go/no-go or approach/avoidance responses toward a stimulus can change its evaluation. To explain these effects, some theoretical accounts propose that executing these responses inherently triggers affective reactions (i.e., action execution), while others posit that the evaluative influences originate from interpreting these responses as valenced actions (i.e., action interpretation). To test the role of action execution and action interpretation in these evaluative effects, we developed a novel training task that combined both go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions orthogonally. Participants either responded or did not respond (i.e., go/no-go) to control a shopping cart on screen, and as a result, either collected or did not collect (i.e., approach/avoidance) certain food items. When the task instructions referred to the go/no-go actions (Experiment 1, <i>N</i> = 148), we observed an effect of these actions. Participants evaluated no-go items less positively than both go and untrained items. No effect of approach/avoidance actions was observed. Contrarily, when the task instructions referred to the approach/avoidance actions (Experiment 2, <i>N</i> = 158), we observed an approach/avoidance effect. Participants evaluated approached items more positively and avoided items less positively than untrained items. No effect of go/no-go actions was observed. This suggests that action interpretation determined whether go/no-go or approach/avoidance actions influenced stimulus evaluation, when the same motor responses were made. Further examination of the role of action interpretation can inform theories of how actions influence stimulus evaluation, and facilitate the use of these interventions in applied settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"8 ","pages":"898-923"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11285421/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Executing go/no-go or approach/avoidance responses toward a stimulus can change its evaluation. To explain these effects, some theoretical accounts propose that executing these responses inherently triggers affective reactions (i.e., action execution), while others posit that the evaluative influences originate from interpreting these responses as valenced actions (i.e., action interpretation). To test the role of action execution and action interpretation in these evaluative effects, we developed a novel training task that combined both go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions orthogonally. Participants either responded or did not respond (i.e., go/no-go) to control a shopping cart on screen, and as a result, either collected or did not collect (i.e., approach/avoidance) certain food items. When the task instructions referred to the go/no-go actions (Experiment 1, N = 148), we observed an effect of these actions. Participants evaluated no-go items less positively than both go and untrained items. No effect of approach/avoidance actions was observed. Contrarily, when the task instructions referred to the approach/avoidance actions (Experiment 2, N = 158), we observed an approach/avoidance effect. Participants evaluated approached items more positively and avoided items less positively than untrained items. No effect of go/no-go actions was observed. This suggests that action interpretation determined whether go/no-go or approach/avoidance actions influenced stimulus evaluation, when the same motor responses were made. Further examination of the role of action interpretation can inform theories of how actions influence stimulus evaluation, and facilitate the use of these interventions in applied settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
行动解释决定了 "去/不去 "和 "接近/回避 "行动对刺激评估的影响。
对刺激做出 "去/不去 "或 "接近/回避 "的反应会改变对刺激的评价。为了解释这些效应,一些理论认为,执行这些反应本身会引发情感反应(即行动执行),而另一些理论则认为,评价性影响源于将这些反应解释为有价值的行动(即行动解释)。为了测试行动执行和行动解释在这些评价性影响中的作用,我们开发了一个新颖的训练任务,将 "去/不去 "和 "接近/回避 "这两种行动正交组合在一起。参与者在控制屏幕上的购物车时,要么做出反应,要么不做出反应(即去/不去),结果是要么收集了某些食品,要么没有收集(即接近/回避)。当任务说明中提到 "去/不去 "操作时(实验 1,N = 148),我们观察到了这些操作的影响。参与者对 "不去 "项目的积极评价低于 "去 "和未经训练的项目。我们没有观察到接近/回避动作的影响。相反,当任务指示提到接近/回避动作时(实验 2,N = 158),我们观察到了接近/回避效果。与未经训练的项目相比,被试对接近项目的评价更积极,对回避项目的评价更消极。我们没有观察到 "去"/"不去 "行动的效应。这表明,在做出相同的动作反应时,动作解释决定了走/不走或接近/回避动作对刺激评价的影响。对动作解释作用的进一步研究可为动作如何影响刺激评价的理论提供信息,并促进这些干预措施在应用环境中的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Approximating Human-Level 3D Visual Inferences With Deep Neural Networks. Prosodic Cues Support Inferences About the Question's Pedagogical Intent. The Double Standard of Ownership. Combination and Differentiation Theories of Categorization: A Comparison Using Participants' Categorization Descriptions. Investigating Sensitivity to Shared Information and Personal Experience in Children's Use of Majority Information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1