不同强度的趋近–回避动机对反应抑制下刺激评价的影响
The Effects of Different Intensities of Approach-Avoidance Motivation on Stimulus Evaluation under Response Inhibition
摘要: 反应抑制是指抑制当前不需要的或不恰当行为反应的能力。研究发现,反应抑制可以减少行为频率并降低刺激评价。其中最具有代表性的解释来源于“行为与刺激交互理论”,该理论认为反应抑制形成的环境要求与刺激引起的趋近动机之间形成冲突,个体为了缓解这种冲突,从而降低刺激评价。但提出该理论的研究者的实验研究并不是从动机本身出发,而是首先强调刺激的积极的情绪效价,由此而产生趋近动机。问题在于,第一,并不能真正判定是否只是动机对反应抑制产生了影响作用;第二,实质上是假设积极情绪引起趋近动机,并认为所有积极情绪刺激诱发的动机水平是相同的,从而没有对动机进行操控,因而无法了解对引起不同动机程度的刺激的反应抑制是否会对刺激评价产生不同的影响。所以研究者的实验实质上并没有完全验证自己的理论。本研究主要根据前人研究的不足,根据情绪的动机维度理论——即动机作为独立于效价、唤醒度的情绪的第三个维度,将动机的类型(趋近–回避)与强度(高–低)进行严格区分,以探讨不同强度的趋近–回避动机对反应抑制下刺激评价的影响。未来研究可以进一步探讨动机对反应抑制下内隐评价的影响、反应抑制影响刺激评价的实效性等。
Abstract: Response inhibition is an ability of inhibiting behavior reaction which is not currently required or inappropriate. Some study found that response inhibition can reduce the frequency of behavior and reduce the stimulus evaluation. The most representative explanation comes from the Behavior Stimulus Interaction theory. This theory holds that the individual reduces the evaluation of stimulus because they have to alleviate the conflict between the environmental requirements for response inhibition and the approach motive of stimulus. But researchers who proposed the theory adopt the general emotional pictures in their research; they emphasize the positive emotional valence of the stimulus firstly, then the approach motive could be provoked by positive emotional stimulus. There are two problems with this. First, it cannot determine whether the motivation has an effect on response inhibition. Second, their research essentially assumes that positive emotions cause approach motivation, and that all positive emotional stimulus induces the same level motivation. It is still unknown that whether response inhibition to stimulus of different motivation levels causes different impacts on stimulus evaluation. This research mainly according to the shortcomings of previous studies, according to the theory of motivation dimension of emotional arousal namely motivation as independent of the titer of the third dimension of emotion, strictly distinguishes the motivation types (reaching avoidance) and strength (high-low), and discusses the approach of the different strength-avoidance motive stimulus evaluation under the response inhibition. Future research can further explore the influence of the motives of response inhibition; and effect of implicit response inhibition can influence the effectiveness of the stimulus evaluation.
文章引用:胡登宇, 陈旭 (2018). 不同强度的趋近–回避动机对反应抑制下刺激评价的影响. 心理学进展, 8(4), 569-578. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2018.84068

参考文献

[1] Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and Motivation I: Defensive and Appetitive Reactions in Picture Processing. Emotion, 1, 276.[CrossRef
[2] Briggs, K. E., & Martin, F. H. (2009). Affective Picture Processing and Motivational Relevance: Arousal and Valence Effects on ERPS in an Oddball Task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 72, 299-306.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3] Buttaccio, D. R., & Hahn, S. (2010). The Effect of Behavioral Response on Affective Evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 135, 343-348.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Frischen, A., Ferrey, A. E., Burt, D. H., Pistchik, M., & Fenske, M. J. (2012). The Affective Consequences of Cognitive Inhibition: Devaluation or Neutralization? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 169-179.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Gable, P. A., Poole, B. D., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2015). Anger Perceptually and Conceptually Narrows Cognitive Scope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 163-174.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Gable, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010a). The Blues Broaden, but the Nasty Narrows Attentional Consequences of Negative Affects Low and High in Motivational Intensity. Psychological Science, 21, 211-215.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Gable, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010b). The Motivational Dimensional Model of Affect: Implications for Breadth of Attention, Memory, and Cognitive Categorisation. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 322-337.[CrossRef
[8] Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Price, T. F. (2013). Does Negative Affect Always Narrow and Positive Affect Always Broaden the Mind? Considering the Influence of Motivational Intensity on Cognitive Scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 301-307.[CrossRef
[9] Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Price, T. F. (2013). What Is Approach Motivation? Emotion Review, 5, 291-295.[CrossRef
[10] Houben, K., & Jansen, A. (2011). Training Inhibitory Control. A Recipe for Resisting Sweet Temptations. Appetite, 56, 345-349.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Houben, K., Nederkoorn, C., Wiers, R. W., & Jansen, A. (2011). Resisting Temptation: Decreasing Alcohol-Related Affect and Drinking Behavior by Training Response Inhibition. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 116, 132-136.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2010). Emotion and the Motivational Brain. Biological Psychology, 84, 437-450.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the Ability to Inhibit Thought and Action: A Theory of an Act of Control. Psychological Review, 91, 295-327.[CrossRef
[14] Pessoa, L. (2009). How Do Emotion and Motivation Direct Executive Control? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 160-166.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Powell, J., Dawkins, L., & Davis, R. E. (2002). Smoking, Reward Responsiveness, and Response Inhibition: Tests of an Incentive Motivational Model. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 151-163.[CrossRef
[16] Veling, H., & Aarts, H. (2011). Unintentional Preparation of Motor Impulses after Incidental Perception of Need-Rewarding Objects. Cognition & Emotion, 25, 1131-1138.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Veling, H., Aarts, H., & Papies, E. K. (2011). Using Stop Signals to Inhibit Chronic Dieters’ Responses toward Palatable Foods. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49, 771-780.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Veling, H., Aarts, H., & Stroebe, W. (2013a). Stop Signals Decrease Choices for Palatable Foods through Decreased Food Evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 875.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Veling, H., Aarts, H., & Stroebe, W. (2013b). Using Stop Signals to Reduce Impulsive Choices for Palatable Unhealthy Foods. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 354-368.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Veling, H., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2008). When Approach Motivation and Behavioral Inhibition Collide: Behavior Regulation through Stimulus Devaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1013-1019.[CrossRef
[21] Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Automatic and Controlled Response Inhibition: Associative Learning in the Go/No-Go and Stop-Signal Paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: General, 137, 649-672.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Wessel, J. R., Tonnesen, A. L., & Aron, A. R. (2015). Stimulus Devaluation Induced by Action Stopping Is Greater for Explicit Value Representations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1640.[CrossRef] [PubMed]