Comparing measures of approach–avoidance behaviour: The manikin task vs. two versions of the joystick task

Abstract

The present research compared three measures of approach–avoidance behaviour with respect to their sensitivity and criterion-validity: moving a manikin on the screen towards and away from stimuli (manikin task), pulling and pushing a joystick (joystick task), and pulling and pushing a joystick causing the visual impression that the stimuli come closer or disappear (feedback-joystick task). When participants responded to stimulus valence, the manikin task was more sensitive to valence than the joystick task (Experiment 1). When participants responded to the grammatical category of valent words, the manikin and the feedback-joystick but not the joystick task were sensitive to valence (Experiment 2). Finally, the manikin task was more sensitive than the feedback-joystick task in assessing approach–avoidance reactions towards spiders, and it was more strongly related to self-reported fear of spiders (Experiment 3). The likelihood of recategorisation of approach–avoidance responses and the means of distance change are discussed as possible explanations for the differences.

Keywords:

• Approach-avoidance
• Implicit measures
• Unintentional evaluation
• Fear of spiders

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG) to Fritz Strack (STR 264/23–1).

We thank Jan De Houwer, Stefan Schmukle, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions.

Notes

¹Whereas Chen and Bargh (1999) let their participants push and pull a vertical lever 91 cm in length, in later studies a joystick was used to assess push and pull movements (e.g., Fishbach & Shah, 2006; Markman & Brendl, 2005; Seibt, Neumann, Nussinson, & Strack, 2008). The main difference between lever and joystick responses is the distance participants have to move their hand, with lever movements requiring a greater distance change (approximately 16 cm in Chen and Bargh's studies) than joystick movements (approximately 3 cm in the present experiments). However, as recent research revealed that compatibility effects in MAAB do not depend on the movement itself but on the cognitive categorisation of the response (Markman & Brendl, 2005; Seibt et al., 2008), this difference can probably be disregarded. Therefore, in the present article, lever and joystick responses are treated equivalently.

²It has also been suggested that evaluations directly activate concrete motor patterns such as arm flexion or arm extension (Cacioppo & Priester, 1993; Coombes, Cauraugh, & Janelle, 2007). However, a considerable amount of research revealed that in MAAB positive or negative stimuli can trigger the very same motor pattern depending on whether the behaviour increases or decreases the distance between the participant and the stimulus in a given context (De Houwer et al. 2001; Markman & Brendl, 2005; Seibt et al., 2008; van Dantzig, Pecher, & Zwaan, 2008).

³In the manikin task, the means of distance regulation is represented at an abstract level rather than at a concrete motor level, because the concrete response merely consists of pressing buttons. As several studies have shown, the meaning of the behaviour rather than the concrete motor pattern is relevant for compatibility effects in MAAB (Markman & Brendl, 2005; Seibt et al., 2008). An important question is whether participants represent the behaviour as moving themselves or as causing a figure to move. In other words, do participants identify with the manikin? Two factors probably increased the likelihood of identification. First, we instructed our participants that “they should move with the manikin towards or away from the stimulus”. To the degree that participants followed this instruction, identification with the manikin should have been increased. Second, the situation of the participants is very similar to a computer game with a controllable figure. In such games, the figure typically represents the player, thereby providing a reason for identification.

⁴While Chen and Bargh (1999), p. 219) instructed their participants “to push the lever forward” and “to pull the lever back toward them”, we decided to follow Seibt et al.'s (2008) instructions in order to increase the likelihood that participants represented the behaviours as approach and avoidance behaviours.