Cited by 326Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSocial and Intergroup PsychologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Approach, avoidance, and affect: a meta-analysis of approach-avoidance tendencies in manual reaction time tasks

Open access
Phaf, R. Hans, Mohr, Sören E., Rotteveel, Mark, Wicherts, Jelte M.·2014·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Approach action tendencies toward positive stimuli and avoidance tendencies from negative stimuli are widely seen to foster survival. Many studies have shown that approach and avoidance arm movements are facilitated by positive and negative affect, respectively. There is considerable debate whether positively and negatively valenced stimuli prime approach and avoidance movements directly (i.e., immediate, unintentional, implicit, automatic, and stimulus-based), or indirectly (i.e., after conscious or non-conscious interpretation of the situation). The direction and size of these effects were often found to depend on the instructions referring to the stimulus object or the self, and on explicit vs. implicit stimulus evaluation. We present a meta-analysis of 29 studies included for their use of strongly positive and negative stimuli, with 81 effect sizes derived solely from the means and standard deviations (combined N = 1538), to examine the automaticity of the link between affective information processing and approach and avoidance, and to test whether it depends on instruction, type of approach-avoidance task, and stimulus type. Results show a significant small to medium-sized effect after correction for publication bias. The strongest arguments for an indirect link between affect and approach-avoidance were the absence of evidence for an effect with implicit evaluation, and the opposite directions of the effect with self and object-related interpretations. The link appears to be influenced by conscious or non-conscious intentions to deal with affective stimuli.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00378

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Explicit instructions in AAT trainings are associated with greater effect sizes than instructions that attempt to conceal the purpose of the training.

    “These explicit instructions were based on meta-analytic findings that explicit instructions in AAT trainings are associated with greater effect sizes than instructions that attempt to conceal the purpose of the training by asking participants to focus on neutral aspects of the stimuli (e.g., push/pull based on the color or shape of the stimuli; Phaf et al., 2014).”

    From Evaluating Mechanisms: Mapping Weekly Dynamics between Experiential Avoidance and SAD Symptoms (2021) · cites this paper as Phaf et al., 2014

    The Introduction (Instruction; page unavailable) defines implicit instructions as responses to task-irrelevant features such as background color. The Results (Moderator analyses of both affects; page unavailable) find smaller effect sizes with implicit than explicit instructions. However, the meta-analysis concerns approach–avoidance effects in manual reaction-time tasks, not the effectiveness of AAT training or whether instructions conceal a training purpose. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Frijda N. H. (1986). The Emotions. London: Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phaf, R. H., Mohr, S. E., Rotteveel, M., & Wicherts, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Tilburg University (NL)
Corresponding author
Phaf, R. Hans
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2014-05-08
Volume
5
Pages
378-378
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092608429
Cited by
326
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
approach-avoidance tendencies, emotional valence, positive and negative stimuli, manual reaction time, implicit evaluation, explicit evaluation, automaticity, affective priming

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review