The contextual malleability of approach-avoidance training effects: approaching or avoiding fear conditioned stimuli modulates effects of approach-avoidance training

ABSTRACT

Previous research showed that the repeated approaching of one stimulus and avoiding of another stimulus typically leads to more positive evaluations of the former stimuli. In the current study, we examined whether approach and avoidance training (AAT) effects on evaluations of neutral stimuli can be modulated by introducing a regularity between the approach-avoidance actions and a positive or negative (feared) stimulus. In an AAT task, participants repeatedly approached one neutral non-word and avoided another neutral non-word. Half of the participants also approached a negative fear-conditioned stimulus (CS+) and avoided a conditioned safe stimulus (CS−). The other half of the participants avoided the CS+ and approached the CS−. Whereas participants in the avoid CS+ condition exhibited a typical AAT effect, participants in the approach CS+ condition exhibited a reversed AAT effect (i.e. they evaluated the approached neutral non-word as more negative than the avoided non-word). These findings provide evidence for the malleability of the AAT effect when strongly valenced stimuli are approached or avoided. We discuss the practical and theoretical implications of our findings.

KEYWORDS:

• Approach-avoidance training
• implicit
• explicit
• evaluations
• context
• fear

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. This pattern of results seems to indicate a standard AAT effect for the CSs: the preference for CS− over CS+ was less pronounced in the condition in which participants performed approach actions towards the CS+ and avoid actions towards the CS−. However, an alternative explanation could be that the avoidance action in the avoid CS+ group acted as a reminder cue of avoiding the shock in the presence of the CS+ in the acquisition phase, which therefore resulted in a greater negative evaluation of the CS+ in this group. Currently, we cannot distinguish between these two competing explanations. Importantly however, neither interpretation can account for the reversed AAT effect observed for the neutral words. That is, even if the approach action counteracted the negative evaluation of the CS+, we still observed a diametrically opposed effect of approaching a neutral word depending on whether the CS+ or the CS− was also approached (i.e., a mean evaluative rating for this neutral word of 44.24 (SD = 17.75) and 59.54 (SD = 16.29), respectively). Conversely, even if the avoidance action acted as a reminder cue of avoiding the shock in the presence of the CS+ during the fear conditioning phase, it did not produce a larger negative evaluation of the avoided neutral word in the avoid CS+ condition (M = 44.30, SD = 17.25) compared to the approached word in the approach CS+ condition (M = 44.24, SD = 17.75). The same argument applies for the fear ratings.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported in this paper was funded by the Interuniversity Attraction Poles Program initiated by the Belgian Science Policy Office [IUAPVII/33] and by Ghent University Methusalem Grant (Universiteit Gent) [BOF09/01M00209] awarded to Jan De Houwer. Pieter Van Dessel is supported by a Postdoctoral fellowship of the Scientific Research Foundation, Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen) grant [FWO12/ASP/275].