4.3 Article

Bypassing the gatekeeper: incidental negative cues stimulate choices with negative outcomes

Journal

COGNITION & EMOTION
Volume 33, Issue 5, Pages 1059-1066

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2018.1523136

Keywords

Theory of event coding; action control; action-effect acquisition; affective congruency effects; cognitive control

Funding

  1. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek [VICI 453-06-002]
  2. ZonMw [11510001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Theory of Event Coding (TEC) predicts that exposure to affective cues can automatically trigger affectively congruent behaviour due to shared representational codes. An intriguing hypothesis from this theory is that exposure to aversive cues can automatically trigger actions that have previously been learned to result in aversive outcomes. Previous work has indeed found such a compatibility effect on reaction times in forced-choice tasks, but not for action selection in free-choice tasks. Failure to observe this compatibility effect for aversive cues in free choice tasks suggests that control processes aimed at directing behaviour toward positive outcomes may overrule the automatic activation of affectively congruent responses in case of aversive cues. The present study tested whether minimising such control could cause selection of actions that have been learned to result in aversive outcomes. Results showed incidental exposure to aversive cues biased selection of behaviours with learned aversive outcomes over behaviours with positive outcomes, despite a preference to execute the positive- over the negative-outcome actions evidenced by a separate behaviour measurement and self-reports. These results suggest motivational processes to select actions with positive consequences may sometimes be bypassed.Data and Materials: http://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/ym7qu

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available