Cargando…

Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias

Tendencies of approach and avoidance seem to be a universal characteristic of humans. Specifically, individuals are faster in avoiding than in approaching negative stimuli and they are faster in approaching than in avoiding positive stimuli. The existence of this automatic approach-avoidance bias ha...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Solzbacher, Johannes, Czeszumski, Artur, Walter, Sven, König, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9505509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36160565
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.797122
_version_ 1784796490437230592
author Solzbacher, Johannes
Czeszumski, Artur
Walter, Sven
König, Peter
author_facet Solzbacher, Johannes
Czeszumski, Artur
Walter, Sven
König, Peter
author_sort Solzbacher, Johannes
collection PubMed
description Tendencies of approach and avoidance seem to be a universal characteristic of humans. Specifically, individuals are faster in avoiding than in approaching negative stimuli and they are faster in approaching than in avoiding positive stimuli. The existence of this automatic approach-avoidance bias has been demonstrated in many studies. Furthermore, this bias is thought to play a key role in psychiatric disorders like drug addiction and phobias. However, its mechanisms are far from clear. Theories of embodied cognition postulate that the nature of gestures plays a key role in this process. To shed light on the role of the involved gesture we employed a 2 × 2 factorial design with two types of stimuli. Participants had either to approach positive and avoid negative stimuli (congruent conditions) or to avoid positive stimuli and approach negative stimuli (incongruent conditions). Further, they responded either with a joystick or a button press on a response pad. Participants reacted faster in congruent conditions, i.e., avoiding negative stimuli and approaching positive stimuli, than in incongruent conditions. This replicates the known approach and avoidance bias. However, direct analysis of the button press condition revealed no reaction time advantage for congruent trials compared to incongruent trials. In contrast, in the joystick condition participants were significantly faster performing congruent reactions than incongruent reactions. This interaction, a significant reaction time advantage, when the response is enacted by moving a joystick towards or away from the body provides evidence that approach-avoidance tendencies have a crucial bodily component.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9505509
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95055092022-09-24 Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias Solzbacher, Johannes Czeszumski, Artur Walter, Sven König, Peter Front Psychol Psychology Tendencies of approach and avoidance seem to be a universal characteristic of humans. Specifically, individuals are faster in avoiding than in approaching negative stimuli and they are faster in approaching than in avoiding positive stimuli. The existence of this automatic approach-avoidance bias has been demonstrated in many studies. Furthermore, this bias is thought to play a key role in psychiatric disorders like drug addiction and phobias. However, its mechanisms are far from clear. Theories of embodied cognition postulate that the nature of gestures plays a key role in this process. To shed light on the role of the involved gesture we employed a 2 × 2 factorial design with two types of stimuli. Participants had either to approach positive and avoid negative stimuli (congruent conditions) or to avoid positive stimuli and approach negative stimuli (incongruent conditions). Further, they responded either with a joystick or a button press on a response pad. Participants reacted faster in congruent conditions, i.e., avoiding negative stimuli and approaching positive stimuli, than in incongruent conditions. This replicates the known approach and avoidance bias. However, direct analysis of the button press condition revealed no reaction time advantage for congruent trials compared to incongruent trials. In contrast, in the joystick condition participants were significantly faster performing congruent reactions than incongruent reactions. This interaction, a significant reaction time advantage, when the response is enacted by moving a joystick towards or away from the body provides evidence that approach-avoidance tendencies have a crucial bodily component. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9505509/ /pubmed/36160565 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.797122 Text en Copyright © 2022 Solzbacher, Czeszumski, Walter and König. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Solzbacher, Johannes
Czeszumski, Artur
Walter, Sven
König, Peter
Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias
title Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias
title_full Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias
title_fullStr Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias
title_full_unstemmed Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias
title_short Evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias
title_sort evidence for the embodiment of the automatic approach bias
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9505509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36160565
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.797122
work_keys_str_mv AT solzbacherjohannes evidencefortheembodimentoftheautomaticapproachbias
AT czeszumskiartur evidencefortheembodimentoftheautomaticapproachbias
AT waltersven evidencefortheembodimentoftheautomaticapproachbias
AT konigpeter evidencefortheembodimentoftheautomaticapproachbias