Cognition and Emotion

ISSN: 0269-9931 (Print) 1464-0600 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20

Comparing measures of approach–avoidance

behaviour: The manikin task vs. two versions of
the joystick task

Regina Krieglmeyer & Roland Deutsch

To cite this article: Regina Krieglmeyer & Roland Deutsch (2010) Comparing measures of
approach–avoidance behaviour: The manikin task vs. two versions of the joystick task, Cognition
and Emotion, 24:5, 810-828, DOI: 10.1080/02699930903047298

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930903047298

Published online: 16 Dec 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1233

View related articles

Citing articles: 58 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pcem20

Download by: [King's College London] Date: 16 September 2017, At: 12:51
 COGNITION AND EMOTION
2010, 24 (5), 810
828

Comparing measures of approach avoidance behaviour:

The manikin task vs. two versions of the joystick task


Regina Krieglmeyer and Roland Deutsch
University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

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
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017

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.

Immediately escaping from dangers or quickly
taking chances to gain food or other rewards are
among the most important regulatory needs of
organisms. In line with this notion, several
psychological theories suggest a fundamental
link from evaluation to behaviour (e.g., Cacioppo
& Gardner, 1999; Fazio & Zanna, 1990; Lang,
Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1990; Neumann, Förster, &
Strack, 2003; Strack & Deutsch, 2004). For
instance, Lang and colleagues (Lang, 1995;
Lang & Bradley, 2008) argued that emotions are
action dispositions that serve the function of
quickly preparing the organism for appropriate
responses towards emotionally significant stimuli.
Supporting this theorising, numerous studies
suggest that perceiving positive things immedi-
ately facilitates approach behaviour, whereas per-
ceiving negative things immediately facilitates
avoidance behaviour. For instance, a seminal study
by Solarz (1960) demonstrated that participants
are faster to pull cards with positive words towards
them and to push cards with negative words away
from them than vice versa.
Recent research demonstrated this stimulus

response compatibility effect with various measures
of approach
avoidance behaviour (MAAB). For

Correspondence should be addressed to: Regina Krieglmeyer, Lehrstuhl für Psychologie II, Röntgenring 10, D-97070
Würzburg, Germany. E-mail: krieglmeyer@psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de
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.

# 2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business 810
http://www.psypress.com/cogemotion DOI:10.1080/02699930903047298
 MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR

instance, Chen and Bargh (1999) asked partici-
pants to pull a lever toward (i.e., approach) and to
push it away (i.e., avoidance) as a response to
valent stimuli that appeared on a computer screen.
In a similar vein, Rinck and Becker (2007) let
their participants pull and push a joystick. How-
ever, to reduce the likelihood that participants
would recategorise pull-responses as withdrawing
the hand, i.e., avoidance, and push-responses as
grasping, i.e., approach (cf. Seibt, Neumann,
Nussinson, & Strack, 2008), they introduced a
visual feedback to the task that created the illusion
that the stimulus actually moved towards or away
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
vioural component of emotional responding.
Particularly, MAAB have potential advantages
compared to self-report measures or measures of
real approach
avoidance behaviour. First, they
might provide valid reflections of someone’s
behavioural reactions even if he or she is moti-
vated to conceal it. Second, they might assess
behavioural reactions people are not aware of and,
therefore, are unable to report. Third, they can be
applied more economically than measures of real
behaviour. Finally, MAAB often are ethically less
problematic than real behaviour measures. That
is, to assess natural approach
avoidance behaviour

from the participants. In particular, pulling the
joystick gradually increased the size of the stimu-
lus on the screen, thus strengthening the sugges-
tion that the pull response led to the approach of
the stimulus. Pushing the joystick decreased the
size of the stimulus, thus suggesting that the push
response actually resulted in the avoidance of the
stimulus. In a study by De Houwer, Crombez,
Baeyens, and Hermans (2001), participants
moved a little figure on the screen towards or
away from a stimulus by pressing buttons on the
keyboard. In particular, the figure either appeared
above or below a stimulus that was shown in the
centre of the screen. Depending on the position of
the figure, moving upwards or downwards meant
approach or avoidance, respectively. In later
applications, MAAB have been used to assess
approach
avoidance tendencies towards social
groups (e.g., Neumann, Hülsenbeck, & Seibt,
2004), goals and temptations (e.g., Fishbach &
Shah, 2006), phobic stimuli (e.g., Rinck &
Becker, 2007), or drugs (e.g., Mogg, Bradley,
Field, & De Houwer, 2003; Schoenmakers,
Wiers, & Field, 2008).
The potential value of MAAB is that they may
provide a distinguished tool to assess the beha-
real stimuli have to be used that are more intense
than the symbolic stimuli used in MAAB. In sum,
MAAB might complement the catalogue of
various implicit measures (e.g., Wittenbrink &
Schwarz, 2007) by providing access to sponta-
neous approach
avoidance reactions towards
emotional stimuli.
So far, the different MAAB such as the joystick
task1 (cf. Chen & Bargh, 1999; Fishbach & Shah,
2006), the feedback-joystick task (Rinck & Becker,
2007) or the manikin task (De Houwer et al., 2001;
Mogg et al., 2003) have been employed as
equivalent measures. Surprisingly, research dedi-
cated to comparing these different variants has
been lacking up to now. Yet, current explanations
of the mechanisms underlying MAAB effects
suggest that these measures might differ with
respect to their validity and sensitivity, depending
on the operationalisation of the approach
avoid-
ance behaviour. Therefore, the present research
aimed to compare often-used MAAB with respect
to their sensitivity and criterion-validity. We
define the sensitivity of a measure as the magnitude
of a measurement outcome given that the to-be-
measured construct was present. The measurement
outcome in MAAB is the size of the compatibility

1
Whereas 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.

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 811

 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH
effect, that is, the facilitation of compatible
responses (i.e., approach positive and avoid nega-
tive) as compared to incompatible responses (i.e.,
avoid positive and approach negative). If a measure
is sensitive to variations in the to-be-measured
construct it also can be considered as a valid
measure of this construct (Borsboom, Mellen-
bergh, & van Heerden, 2004; De Houwer,
Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009).
Thus, validity is a qualitive concept: a measure is
either valid or not (Borsboom et al., 2004). In
contrast, sensitivity is a quantitative concept: valid
measures can differ in their sensitivity.
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
Figure 1 illustrates the processes that are
typically assumed to underlie MAAB effects.
The presentation of a stimulus leads to its
evaluation, which results in the activation of
compatible behavioural schemata. The measure-
ment outcome is the facilitation of compatible
responses as compared to incompatible responses.
This response facilitation is assumed to reflect the
degree to which approach or avoidance schemata
are activated. As the evaluation of the stimuli is
assumed to be the main inner determinant of the
activation of approach
avoidance schemata, the
measurement outcome also reflects the evaluation
of the stimuli. Taken together, the sensitivity of a
MAAB is a function of the extent to which it
reflects the degree of the activation of behavioural
approach
avoidance schemata. As is illustrated in
Figure 1, individual dispositions may moderate
how the stimulus is evaluated and to what degree
approach or avoidance schemata are activated.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the measurement model underlying our analysis of MAAB. Evaluation, disposition, and behavioural
schemata are hypothetical constructs.
812 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)
For example, compared to an average person, a
person who has a strong fear of spiders may
evaluate spiders more negatively and respond with
stronger avoidance tendencies. Applying our
definition of sensitivity, it follows that the
sensitivity of a MAAB to individual differences
is a function of the extent to which it reflects the
impact of variations in the disposition variable on
the measurement outcome.
Why might current MAAB differ with respect
to their validity and sensitivity? Derived from
current explanations of MAAB effects, we pro-
pose that two procedural features might be
responsible for differences in validity and sensi-
tivity: (1) the ease of recategorising the responses
in other terms than the instructed approach

avoidance responses; and (2) the means of dis-
tance change. In the following, we will first
describe the current explanations of MAAB
effects and, then, present our analysis of how
procedural differences of MAAB might be re-
sponsible for differences in their validity and
sensitivity. While there is agreement that evalua-
tions result in the activation of compatible
behavioural schemata (cf. Figure 1), there are
different views on which processes mediate this
link. According to one account, evaluations
induce motivational orientations (Neumann
et al., 2003; Strack & Deutsch, 2004), which are
conceptualised as states that prepare the organism
to decrease or increase the distance between the
self and an object. Motivational orientations are
assumed to have several consequences, the most

important being a behavioural preparedness to
execute approach or avoidance reactions.2 In
contrast, the evaluative coding view suggests that
MAAB effects occur due to valence compatibility
rather than due to motivational orientations (Eder
& Rothermund, 2008; Lavender & Hommel,
2007). Drawing on the theory of event coding
(TEC; Hommel, Musseler, Aschersleben, &
Prinz, 2001), the proponents of this approach
argue that approach and avoidance behaviours are
mentally represented as being positive and nega-
tive, respectively. Consequently, the perception of
positive and negative stimuli may facilitate overt
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
approach and avoidance behaviours because the
evaluation of the stimuli overlaps with the valence
of the response representations.
What follows from these theories regarding
possible differences in the validity and sensitivity
of MAAB as a function of their procedural
differences? Both theories imply that the validity
of MAAB can be undermined when the responses
are recategorised in other terms than the in-
structed response labels. When recategorisation is
easy to accomplish participants are likely to
recategorise their responses if it helps them to
perform the task. Thus, they might recategorise
the responses if other than the instructed labels
map more naturally onto the requested motor
behaviours. For instance, the labels forward/back-
ward might map more naturally onto joystick
movements than the labels towards/away. In
addition to a general recategorisation, participants
might recategorise the responses especially when
the stimulus
response assignment is incompatible
with participants’ automatic tendency. Thus,
when participants complete two blocks, one with
a compatible (e.g., pull positive words toward
yourself and push negative words away from
yourself) and another with an incompatible
stimulus
response assignment (e.g., pull negative
words toward yourself and push positive words
2
It 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).
MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR
away from yourself), they might reverse the
meaning of the responses in the incompatible
block only (e.g., withdraw your arm from negative
words and extend your arm to touch positive
words). It is obvious that MAAB can only be a
valid measure of the activation of approach

avoidance schemata when the responses are not
recategorised in other terms than the instructed
approach
avoidance responses. This is true from
the perspective of the motivational orientation
view as well as from the perspective of the
evaluative coding view. Thus, the possibility of
recategorisation undermines the validity of
MAAB because only responses that are coded in
terms of approach
avoidance can capture the
activation of approach
avoidance schemata.
Furthermore, the possibility of recategorisation
introduces error variance (as some participants
might recategorise and others not) and, therefore,
reduces the sensitivity of the measure. Note that,
according to the evaluative coding view, MAAB
can still be a valid measure of valence (but not of
the activation of approach
avoidance schemata)
when participants represent their responses with
affective labels that are unrelated to approach

avoidance (Eder & Rothermund, 2008). Neutral
response labels, however, would completely un-
dermine the validity of MAAB as a measure of
valence.
To what degree do current MAAB differ in the
ease with which the responses can be recate-
gorised? Recent research suggests that simple
joystick movements can easily be categorised in
different ways by giving respective instructions
(Eder & Rothermund, 2008; Markman & Brendl,
2005; Seibt et al., 2008). Thus, it is very likely that
participants mentally categorise the responses in
other than the instructed terms as this can make
the task easier. In the feedback-joystick task,
however, joystick responses lead to the visual
impression that the stimulus comes closer or
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 813
 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH

disappears. Under these conditions, reversing the
approach
avoidance meaning seems to be very
difficult, if not impossible (Rinck & Becker, 2007).
Yet, participants still might represent their beha-
viour as merely increasing or decreasing the size of
the stimulus, which is unrelated to approach

avoidance. Contrary to the joystick tasks, in the
manikin task (De Houwer et al., 2001) recategor-
isation is rather unlikely. Although in principle the
movements can be recategorised as moving down-
wards and upwards, this would make the task more
difficult instead of easier. The reason for this is
that the manikin either appears above or below the
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
defensive reflexes consist of moving parts of the
body away from the source of danger rather than
causing the threatening stimulus to withdraw (cf.
Lang et al., 1990). Furthermore, the flexibility of
using one’s hands to manipulate the position of
objects prevents the development of highly auto-
matised approach
avoidance schemata (cf. Mark-
man & Brendl, 2005; Seibt et al., 2008). From the
perspective of the motivational orientation view,
highly automatised means of distance change
might be activated more easily and strongly than
less automatised means. In particular, positive
evaluations might activate the behavioural schema

stimulus, and, therefore, up and down responses
are unrelated to the instructed approach
avoidance
responses. Thus, depending on the position of the
figure, participants have to determine in each trial
which response means approach or avoidance.
Consequently, the representation of approach
and avoidance is activated in each trial. Taken
together, the ease of a mental categorisation of the
behaviours in other terms than approach
avoid-
ance differs between the tasks, with the manikin
task presumably being least susceptible for recate-
gorisation and the joystick task without visual
feedback being most susceptible.
A second important procedural difference
between current MAAB is the means of distance
change. Whereas in the joystick tasks participants
cause the stimulus to move, the manikin task
requires them to move the figure. Thus, in the
joystick task, the means of distance regulation is
taking the object vs. putting it away, while in the
manikin task the means is running towards vs.
away from the object.3 Running towards/away
presumably is a more automatised means of
distance change than manipulating the position
of objects. For instance, highly automatised
of moving towards to a stronger degree than the
behavioural schema of taking the object. Con-
versely, negative evaluations might activate the
behavioural schema of moving away to a stronger
degree than the behavioural schema of putting the
object away. From this reasoning it follows that
the manikin task might have a greater sensitivity
than the joystick tasks.
One may question this conclusion because the
relation between the concrete response and
the approach
avoidance meaning is flexible in
the manikin task. For example, pressing the up
button means approach when the figure appears
below the word, whereas it means avoidance when
the figure appears above the word. In the joystick
task, on the other hand, the relation between the
concrete response (pulling and pushing) and the
approach
avoidance meaning remains constant
over the whole task. Given the more consistent
mapping of concrete behaviours and their meaning
in the joystick task as compared to the manikin
task, one might suspect the behaviours being more
automatised in the former than in the latter. For
our argument, however, it is important to distin-
guish between the link from evaluation to the

3
In 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.

814 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)


activation of approach
avoidance schemata and
the translation of the activated approach
avoid-
ance schema into concrete behaviours. Whereas
the first presumably is a long-term link, the latter is
established during the measurement. MAAB aim
at assessing the long-term link between valence
and approach
avoidance schemata, not the short-
term association that translate such schemata into
concrete movements. Importantly, our argument
regarding the differential automaticity of the
means of distance change relates to the long-
term links, not to the short-term associations.
According to our reasoning, the long-term link
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
between evaluation and moving the self might be
stronger than the long-term link between evalua-
tion and moving the object. Thus, given that the
compatibility effect of the manikin task mainly
reflects the activation of behavioural schemata of
moving the self, and given that the compatibility
effect of the joystick task mainly reflects the
activation of behavioural schemata of moving an
object, the manikin task should reveal larger
compatibility effects than the joystick task. In
contrast, the fact that in the manikin task the
relation between the concrete responses and their
approach
avoidance meaning is flexible should
result in an overall slowdown of the responses as
compared to the joystick task.
It is important to note that the means of
distance change are less relevant from the per-
spective to the evaluative coding view. In parti-
cular, the evaluative coding view suggests that the
evaluative codes of the response representations
are determined by the labels used in the task
instructions (Eder & Rothermund, 2008). As the
labels used in the manikin and the joystick tasks
are identical (i.e., towards vs. away), the concrete
means of distance change should be irrelevant.
The above analyses suggest that the procedural
differences between the tasks might result in
differences in their sensitivity and criterion-valid-
ity. On one hand, the suspected differences are
important for practical reasons when it comes to
selecting an optimal research tool. On the other
hand, the suspected differences are relevant for a
theoretical question that has stimulated some
MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR
debate: Do valent stimuli trigger approach
avoid-
ance behaviours even when participants do not have
the intention to evaluate the stimuli? A large
amount of research measuring the startle reflex as
an indicator of a preparedness to engage in
avoidance behaviour supports the notion that
valent stimuli exert a significant influence on such
momentary dispositions even in the absence of
evaluation intentions (e.g., Bradley, Codispoti,
Cuthbert, & Lang, 2001; Lang et al., 1990; Lang,
Greenwald, Bradley, & Hamm, 1993). In particu-
lar, when participants passively look at positive and
negative pictures, the startle response is modulated
by the valence of the pictures. In contrast to these
findings, studies using MAAB as indicators of a
preparedness to approach or to avoid revealed
mixed results. Some studies imply that stimulus
valence affects approach
avoidance reactions even
without an intention to evaluate (Chen & Bargh,
1999; De Houwer et al., 2001). Other studies
suggest that stimulus valence has no effect under
such conditions (Lavender & Hommel, 2007;
Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004). The present perspective
may help to reconcile these findings. In particular,
the procedural differences outlined above and their
hypothesised effect on the sensitivity of MAAB
may at least in part be responsible for diverging
results on whether MAAB effects depend on
intentions to evaluate. According to the above
analysis, MAAB might be most sensitive when
recategorisation is unlikely and when the means of
distance change is highly automatised. Given that
the outcome of intentional evaluations is stronger
than the outcome of unintentional evaluations, one
would most likely find an effect of valence even in
the absence of evaluation intentions in the manikin
task as compared to the joystick tasks.
To test our predictions, we first compared the
sensitivity of the manikin and the joystick task
when participants responded according to the
valence of normatively positive and negative words
(Experiment 1). Then, we compared the manikin
and the joystick task when the valence of the words
was task irrelevant, and thus intentional evaluation
of the stimuli was probably undermined (Experi-
ment 2a). Because Experiment 2a revealed a
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 815
 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH
compatibility effect in the manikin but not in the
joystick task, we conducted Experiment 2b, in
which we employed the feedback-joystick task
(Rinck & Becker, 2007). We hypothesised that
the approach
avoidance feedback provided in this
task would reduce the likelihood of recategorisa-
tion, and thus, we expected to observe an effect of
task-irrelevant valence in this measure. Finally,
Experiment 3 was geared towards comparing the
criterion-validity of the manikin and the feedback-
joystick task in the domain fear of spiders. To this
aim, we compared the correlations between self-
reported fear of spiders and the MAAB effects.
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
Based on the above analysis, we hypothesised that
the manikin task has a higher criterion-validity
than the feedback-joystick task. In addition to
sensitivity and criterion-validity, we compared the
split-half reliability of the MAAB in all experi-
ments. Although we did not have specific hypoth-
eses regarding differences in reliability, this
comparison might still be interesting for practical
reasons, that is, for gaining knowledge of the
psychometric properties of the different measures.
For the sake of brevity, we discuss the results of all
experiments together in the general discussion.
EXPERIMENT 1
Method
Participants and design
Thirty-eight students (32 female) from the Uni-
versity of Würzburg took part in the study. The
mean age was 22.16 years (SD5.01). Partici-
pants received course credit or t6 (approximately
US$9 at that time) as compensation, depending
on whether they were psychology or non-psychol-
ogy students. The design was a 2 (Task: manikin
vs. joystick)2 (Compatibility: compatible vs.
incompatible)2 (Order of Compatibility: com-
patible first vs. incompatible first)2 (Order of
Tasks: manikin first vs. joystick first) factorial
mixed design with the last two factors manipu-
lated between participants. In all experiments
reported in this article, the number of participants
816 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)
assigned to each of the counterbalancing groups
was approximately equal.
Manikin task
Following De Houwer et al. (2001), participants
moved the manikin upwards or downwards by
repeatedly pressing the ‘‘8’’ or ‘‘2’’ keys, respec-
tively, of the numerical keyboard with their
middle finger. At the beginning of each trial, a
cross was presented to centre participants’ atten-
tion. Participants had to press the ‘‘5’’ key with
their middle finger and keep it pressed until they
began to move with the manikin. Thereby, at the
beginning of a trial the middle finger was always
at the same starting position. Triggered by the key
press on the ‘‘5’’ key, the manikin appeared either
in the upper or in the lower half of the screen.
Then, 750 ms after the appearance of the mani-
kin, a word was presented in the centre of the
screen. Depending on conditions, participants
were instructed to move with the manikin towards
positive words and to move with the manikin
away from negative words, or vice versa. They
were instructed to respond as fast and as accu-
rately as possible. Participants had to press the
respective key three times to move the manikin
across the screen. Each key press moved the
manikin 38 pixels. By alternating the length of
the manikin’s legs each time it appeared in a new
position, the impression of walking was evoked.
500 ms after the third key press all stimuli were
deleted from the screen. The inter-trial interval
was 1000 ms. The time between the onset of the
word and the first key press was measured as
dependent variable.
Joystick task
Similar to Chen and Bargh (1999), participants
pulled and pushed a joystick. At the beginning of
each trial, three asterisks were presented for 200 ms
to centre participants’ attention, followed by a
blank screen for 100 ms. Then a word appeared
in the centre of the screen. Depending on condi-
tions, participants were instructed to move positive
words towards themselves by means of pulling the

joystick, and to move negative words away from
themselves by means of pushing the joystick, or vice
versa4 (cf. Seibt et al., 2008). They were told to
respond as fast and as accurately as possible. After
participants responded all stimuli were deleted
from the screen. The inter-trial interval was
1000 ms. The time between the onset of the word
and when participants had moved the joystick 50%
of the range in the respective direction was
measured as dependent variable.
Materials
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
We selected 30 positive and 30 negative nouns as
test stimuli and 10 positive and 10 negative nouns
as practice stimuli (Hager & Hasselhorn, 1994;
Klauer & Musch, 1999). Words were presented in
uppercase letters with a font size of 32 pt. For the
manikin task, we draw a simple figure consisting of
a circle for the head, a square for the body, and lines
representing the arms and legs. The manikin was
about 2.8 cm high and 1.9 cm wide. All stimuli
were presented in white font on a black back-
ground. The screen had a resolution of 1024768
pixels. The joystick was a Logitech Attack 3.
Procedure
Participants learned that the experiment was
about sensorimotor co-ordination and reaction
rate. Depending on conditions, participants first
completed the manikin task and then the joystick
task or vice versa. In each task, participants
completed one compatible block consisting of 60
test trials, and one incompatible block, consisting
of 60 test trials. Each block was preceded by 20
practice trials. All trials were presented in random
order. The order of the compatible and the
incompatible block was counterbalanced between
participants. Yet, the same order was administered
in the manikin and the joystick task.
4
While 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.
MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR
RESULTS
Data analysis strategy
Reaction-time analyses usually require corrections
of outliers, which can be achieved by various means
such as cut-offs or transformations (Ratcliff,
1993). Unlike with other measures (e.g., Green-
wald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003) there exists no
convention how to correct for outliers in MAAB.
Therefore, we compared different correction
methods. Following the suggestions of Ratcliff
(1993), we employed various general cut-offs
(2000, 1500, and 1000 ms), an individual cut-off
based on 1.5 standard deviations above the in-
dividual mean, log-transformation, and inverse-
transformation. Additionally, we analysed the
median. Previous to applying the outlier correction
methods, we inspected the distribution of the
reaction latencies to check if there were obviously
invalid responses. This was the case in Experiment
1 for one response (20823 ms), and it was the case
in Experiment 3 for one response (47 ms). These
two reaction latencies were excluded. We report
the impact of the outlier correction methods on the
compatibility effects as well as on split-half
reliability. For the sake of conciseness, we report
the inference-statistical comparisons of the
MAAB based on the correction method that
revealed the strongest effects over all experiments
reported in this article, namely the 1500 ms cut-
off. In all experiments reported in this article, we
conducted preliminary analyses, in which the
method factors (i.e., order of tasks, order of
compatibility, or response mapping) were in-
cluded. As these analyses did not reveal significant
main effects or interactions of the method factors
we excluded them from the main analyses.
Sensitivity
We subjected latencies of correct responses of
compatible and incompatible trials (incorrect
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 817
 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH
responses: manikin 5.8%; joystick 4.6%) to a 2
(Compatibility)2 (Task) analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for repeated measures. This analysis
yielded a significant main effect of Task, F(1,
37)20.67, pB.001, d0.81, a significant main
effect of Compatibility, F(1, 37)32.69, pB.001,
d0.60, and a significant interaction of Task and
Compatibility, F(1, 37)21.61, pB.001, d
0.95. Post hoc contrasts indicated that the differ-
ence between latencies of compatible and incom-
patible trials was significant in the manikin task,
t(37)6.27, pB.001, d0.74, and marginally
significant in the joystick task, t(37)1.90, p
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
.065, d0.19 (Table 1). As an effect-size measure,
we calculated Cohen’s d of the compatibility effects
(i.e., latencies of correct responses in incompatible
trials minus latencies of correct responses in
compatible trials). The impact of the outlier
correction methods on the compatibility effects is
presented in Table 2. Whereas the compatibility
effect in the manikin task (d0.500.79) was
between medium and large according to Cohen’s
(1988) standards, the compatibility effect in the
joystick task (d0.150.22) was small. The
manikin compatibility effect was statistically sig-
nificant with all correction methods, whereas the
joystick compatibility effect was only significant
with a 1000 ms cut-off and with an inverse- as well
as log-transformation. The compatibility effects of
the tasks were positively, but not significantly,
correlated, r.22, p.19.
Reliability
We calculated the split-half reliability of the
compatibility effect scores of the manikin task
and the joystick task. To this end, we listed all
Table 1. Mean response latencies of compatible and incompatible trials as a function of task and experiment.
Manikin
Experiments Compatible Incompatible
Exp. 1 740.22 (139.24) 843.76 (139.20)
Exp. 2a & 2b 828.03 (114.51) 842.63 (107.06)
Exp. 3 643.01 (94.33) 676.82 (106.66)
Note: Means are based on the 1500 ms cut-off criterion. Values enclosed in parentheses represent standard deviations.
818 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)
trials in order of appearance, separately for
stimulus valence, compatibility with response,
and participant. Then, we calculated a compat-
ibility score (i.e., latencies of correct incompatible
responses minus latencies of correct compatible
responses) based on the odd trials, and a compat-
ibility score based on the even trials. Thereby,
each score was based on an equal number of
positive and negative stimuli. We correlated these
two scores by applying a Spearman
Brown cor-
rection. The reliability was r.91 for the manikin
task and r.85 for the joystick task. To test
whether the reliability coefficients of the tasks
differed significantly, we followed the suggestions
of Steiger (1980) for testing differences between
dependent correlations. In particular, we trans-
formed the correlation coefficients into z-values
and then calculated the difference of the z-values
by using the formula suggested by Steiger (1980),
which takes into account the sample size and the
covariance of the correlation matrix. This analysis
suggests that the two tasks are equally reliable,
zdiff 1.12, p.26. The reliability coefficients are
presented in Table 2 as a function of the outlier
correction method. The reliability of the manikin
task ranged between .84 and .95. The reliability of
the joystick task ranged between .77 and .91.
Thus, irrespective of the outlier correction
method, the reliability of both measures was good.
EXPERIMENTS 2A AND 2B
Experiments 2a and 2b were focused on comparing
MAAB under conditions in which participants
were not required to process the valence of the
Joystick Feedback-Joystick
Compatible Incompatible Compatible Incompatible
685.19 (112.86) 706.20 (109.06)
755.64 (114.52) 755.85 (108.97) 795.86 (99.08) 804.97 (91.93)
613.55 (71.70) 625.77 (69.60)
 MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR

Table 2. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) and reliability coefficients (split-half Spearman
Brown) of the compatibility effects as a function of task,
outlier correction method, and experiment.

Manikin Joystick Feedback-Joystick

Experiments d r d r d r

Exp. 1 No correction 0.63*** .90 0.21  .91

Cut-off 2000 ms 0.65*** .94 0.18  .85
Cut-off 1500 ms 0.74*** .91 0.19  .85
Cut-off 1000 ms 0.77*** .84 0.17* .77
Log(RT) 0.72*** .92 0.21* .90
1/RT 0.79*** .90 0.22* .89
1.5 SD 0.50*** .95 0.15 .86
Median 0.63*** .93 0.17 .83
Exp. 2a & 2b No correction 0.10* .03 0.03 .21 0.03 .44
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017

Cut-off 2000 ms 0.10** .65 0.02 .31 0.06 .20

Cut-off 1500 ms 0.13** .11 0.002 .27 0.10* .23
Cut-off 1000 ms 0.05 .04 0.04 .53 0.04 .59
Log(RT) 0.11** .22 0.04 .29 0.05 .30
1/RT 0.12** .22 0.04 .32 0.06 .07
1.5 SD 0.09** .10 0.01 .44 0.01 .28
Median 0.08  .09 0.01 .28 0.03 .33
Exp. 3 No correction 0.29** .81 0.14 .78
Cut-off 2000 ms 0.29** .80 0.16  .80
Cut-off 1500 ms 0.34*** .78 0.17  .69
Cut-off 1000 ms 0.29** .75 0.19* .66
Log(RT) 0.28** .80 0.15  .79
1/RT 0.25** .79 0.15  .79
1.5 SD 0.22** .72 0.11 .58
Median 0.32** .79 0.16  .66

Note: p B.10; *p B.05; **p B.01; ***pB.001.

stimuli. To this end, we instructed participants to
respond according to the grammatical category of
the words (De Houwer et al., 2001; De Houwer &
Eelen, 1998). In Experiment 2a, we compared the
manikin and the joystick task. Because we did not
find a compatibility effect in the joystick task, we
conducted Experiment 2b, in which we employed
the feedback-joystick task (Rinck & Becker, 2007).
If providing approach
avoidance-relevant feed-
back reduces the likelihood of recategorisation of
the responses, then the feedback-variant should
reveal a compatibility effect when valence is task
irrelevant.
took part in the study. The mean age was 23.49
years (SD3.73). We excluded one participant
from the analyses because he did not follow
instructions, but moved the manikin only in one
direction. Participants received t6 (approximately
US$9 at that time) as compensation. The
design was a 2 (Task: manikin vs. joystick)2
(Compatibility: compatible vs. incompatible)2
(Response Mapping: noun-approach, adjective-
avoidance vs. vice versa)2 (Order of Tasks:
manikin first vs. joystick first) factorial mixed
design with the last two factors manipulated
between participants.

Method Experiment 2b. Forty-eight non-psychology stu-

Participants and design
Experiment 2a. Forty-nine non-psychology stu-
dents (34 female) from the University of Würzburg
dents (31 female) from the University of Würzburg
took part in the study. The mean age was 23.35
years (SD3.57). Participants received t6 (ap-
proximately US$9 at that time) as compensation.

COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 819

 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH
The design was a 2 (Compatibility: compatible vs.
incompatible)2 (Response Mapping: noun-ap-
proach, adjective-avoidance vs. vice versa) factorial
mixed design with the second factor manipulated
between participants.
Measures
Experiment 2a. The manikin and the joystick
task were the same as in Experiment 1 with the
exception that participants responded to the
grammatical category of the words. In the man-
ikin task, participants were instructed to move
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
with the manikin to the word, when it was a
noun, and to move with the manikin away from
the word, when it was an adjective, or vice versa,
depending on conditions. In the joystick task,
participants were instructed to pull the word with
the joystick towards them, when it was a noun,
and to push it away from them, when it was an
adjective, or vice versa, depending on conditions.
Experiment 2b. In Experiment 2b, we used a
feedback-joystick task similar to that introduced
by Rinck and Becker (2007). At the beginning of
each trial, three asterisks were presented for
200 ms to centre participants’ attention, followed
by a blank screen for 100 ms. Then a word
appeared in the centre of the screen. Depending
on response-mapping conditions, participants
were instructed to move nouns towards them-
selves by means of pulling the joystick, and to
move adjectives away from themselves by means
of pushing the joystick, or vice versa. They were
told to respond as fast and as accurately as
possible. After participants responded the word
increased or decreased in size, depending on
whether participants pulled or pushed the joy-
stick. Immediately after pulling, the font size of
the word changed to 40 pt for 50 ms, then to
48 pt for 50 ms, then to 56 pt for 50 ms, and
finally to 64 pt for 500 ms. This created the
illusion that the word moved towards the parti-
cipant. Immediately after pushing, the font size of
the word changed to 24 pt for 50 ms, then to
16 pt for 50 ms, then to 8 pt for 50 ms, and finally
disappeared. Then a blank screen was presented
820 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)
for 500 ms. This created the illusion that the word
moved away from the participant and finally
disappeared. The inter-trial interval was 1000 ms.
Materials
We selected 30 positive and 30 negative nouns as
well as 30 positive and 30 negative adjectives as test
stimuli, and 4 positive and 4 negative nouns as well
as 4 positive and 4 negative adjectives as practice
stimuli (Hager & Hasselhorn, 1994; Klauer &
Musch, 1999). All other materials were the same as
in Experiment 1.
Procedure
In Experiment 2a, participants first completed the
manikin task and then the joystick task, or vice
versa, depending on conditions. In each task,
participants first completed 16 practice trials, and
then 120 test trials with a break after 60 trials. All
trials were presented in random order. The
procedure of Experiment 2b was similar to
Experiment 2a with the exception that only the
feedback-joystick task was administered.
Results
Sensitivity
Experiment 2a. We subjected latencies of correct
responses of compatible and incompatible trials
(incorrect responses: manikin, 5.6%; joystick,
4.5%) to a 2 (Compatibility)2 (Task) ANOVA
for repeated measures. This analysis yielded a
significant main effect of Task, F(1, 47)22.68,
pB.001, d0.72, a marginally significant main
effect of Compatibility, F(1, 47)3.29, p.076,
d0.08, and a significant interaction of Task and
Compatibility, F(1, 47)4.26, p.045, d
0.39. Post hoc contrasts indicated that the
difference between latencies of compatible and
incompatible trials was significant in the manikin
task, t(47)3.03, p.004, d0.13, but not
significant in the joystick task, tB1 (for means
and standard deviations see Table 1). As Table 2
shows, the manikin compatibility effect (d
0.050.11) was small, but significant with all
outlier correction methods, except from the
1000 ms cut-off and the median. The joystick

compatibility effect, however, did not reach sig-
nificance. The compatibility effects of the tasks
were positively, but not significantly correlated,
r.16, p.28.
Experiment 2b. We subjected latencies of correct
responses of compatible and incompatible trials
(incorrect responses: 2.8%) to an ANOVA for
repeated measures. This analysis yielded a sig-
nificant main effect of Compatibility, F(1, 47)
4.54, p.038, d0.10 (for means and standard
deviations see Table 1). As Table 2 shows, the
compatibility effect depended strongly on the
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
outlier correction method, reaching significance
only with a 1500 ms cut-off.
Reliability
Experiment 2a. We calculated odd
even split-
half Spearman
Brown reliability similar to the
previous experiment. The reliability was r .11
for the manikin task and r.27 for the joystick
task. The reliability coefficients did not differ
significantly, zdiff 0.98, p.33. As can be seen
in Table 2, the reliability of the manikin compat-
ibility effect was negative with all outlier correction
methods, ranging from .65 to .03. The relia-
bility of the joystick compatibility effect was positive
but not satisfactory, ranging between .21 and .53.
Experiment 2b. Split-half reliability of the feed-
back-joystick task was r .23. Table 2 shows
that the reliability coefficient was affected strongly
by the outlier correction methods, ranging from
.59 to .44. Yet, over all correction methods, the
reliability was not satisfactory.
EXPERIMENT 3
Researchers are often interested in assessing stable
individual differences in approach
avoidance
reactions towards various stimuli (e.g., Mogg et
al., 2003; Rinck & Becker, 2007; Wiers, van
Woerden, Smulders, & de Jong, 2002). Even if a
measure has been proven to be sensitive towards
normative stimuli such as clearly positive or
MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR
negative words, it remains an important question
whether the measure would be capable of mapping
stable differences between people. Experiment 3
was designed to compare the sensitivity and the
criterion-validity of the manikin and the feedback-
joystick task in the domain fear of spiders. Towards
this end, we estimated the disposition variable by
administering a questionnaire measure. The corre-
lation between the compatibility effect of the
MAAB and the questionnaire served as an index
of criterion-validity. Based on the analysis of the
procedural differences between the tasks, we
expected the manikin task to reveal a higher
sensitivity and criterion-validity than the feed-
back-joystick task.
Method
Participants and design
Sixty-one non-psychology students (40 female)
from the University of Würzburg took part in the
study. The mean age was 22.98 years (SD2.45).
Participants received t6 (approximately US$9 at
that time) as compensation. The design was a 2
(Task: manikin vs. feedback-joystick)2 (Com-
patibility: compatible vs. incompatible)2 (Or-
der of Compatibility: compatible first vs.
incompatible first)2 (Order of Tasks: manikin
first vs. feedback-joystick first) factorial mixed
design with the last two factors manipulated
between participants.
Materials
We used 12 spider and 12 butterfly pictures as test
stimuli and 4 spider and 4 butterfly pictures as
practice stimuli (Gerdes, Alpers, & Pauli, 2007).
The pictures had a size of approximately 200
250 pixels. For the feedback-joystick task, seven
additional picture sizes were created by increasing
the size by 1.3 four times, and decreasing the size
by 0.6 three times. The resolution of the screen
was 1024768 pixels.
Measures
The manikin and the feedback-joystick task were
similar to the previous experiments. Yet, we pre-
sented pictures instead of words, and participants
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 821
 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH
were instructed to respond according to the
category of the picture (i.e., spider vs. butterfly).
Procedure
Participants first completed the MAAB. The
order of the tasks was counterbalanced across
participants. In each task, they completed one
block of 48 compatible trials and one block of 48
incompatible trials. The order of the blocks was
counterbalanced across participants. Each block
was preceded by eight practice trials. After
finishing the MAAB, participant evaluated the
pictures on a scale from 1 (very negative) to 9 (very
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
positive). Respective Cronbach as for the spider
and the butterfly pictures were .94 and .93. Then,
they completed the German version of the Fear of
Spiders Questionnaire (FAS; Rinck et al., 2002;
Szymanski & Odonohue, 1995) as well as the
Fear of Spiders Screening (SAS; Rinck et al.,
2002). Both scales had a satisfactory reliability.
Respective Cronbach as were .90 for the FAS,
and .81 for the SAS.
Results
Sensitivity
We subjected latencies of correct responses of
compatible and incompatible trials (incorrect
responses: manikin, 3.3%; feedback-joystick,
2.3%) to a 2 (Task)2 (Compatibility) ANOVA
for repeated measures. This analysis yielded a
significant main effect of Task, F(1, 60)11.48,
p.001, d0.49, a significant main effect of
Compatibility, F(1, 60)16.58, pB.001, d
0.32, and a significant interaction of Task and
Compatibility, F(1, 60)4.58, p.036, d
0.36. Post hoc contrasts indicated that the
difference between latencies of compatible and
incompatible trials was significant in the manikin
task, t(60)3.91, pB.001, d0.34, and margin-
ally significant in the feedback-joystick task,
t(60)1.93, p.059, d0.17 (for means and
standard deviations see Table 1). As can be seen in
Table 2, the manikin compatibility effect was
small, ranging from d0.22 to d0.34. The
compatibility effect in the feedback-joystick task
was smaller and ranged between d0.11 and
822 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)
d0.19, being significant at the p.05 level only
with a 1000 ms cut-off.
Reliability
Split-half reliability was r.78 for the manikin
task and r.69 for the feedback-joystick task.
The tasks were equally reliable, zdiff 0.88, p
.38. As can be seen in Table 2, the reliability of
the manikin compatibility score ranged between
.72 and .81 as a function of the applied outlier
correction method. The reliability of the feed-
back-joystick compatibility effect ranged between
.66 and .80.
Criterion-validity
To examine the criterion-validity of the measures,
we first computed approach
avoidance indices for
spiders as well as for butterflies by subtracting
latencies of approach responses from latencies of
avoidance responses (cf. Rinck & Becker, 2007).
These indices can be interpreted as approach
biases towards the respective stimulus category.
Table 3 presents the correlations among the
explicit measures as well as the approach
avoid-
ance indices. Confirming the validity of the
explicit measures, the spider fear scales were
positively correlated. Furthermore, the spider
fear scales were negatively correlated with explicit
positivity towards spider pictures but not with
explicit positivity towards butterfly pictures. Cor-
relations of explicit measures with the approach

avoidance indices of the manikin task were as
expected. In particular, the spider fear scales were
negatively correlated with approach-biases to-
wards spiders and positively, but not significantly,
correlated with approach biases towards butter-
flies. Explicit positivity towards spiders was
positively correlated with approach-biases towards
spiders and negatively correlated with approach
biases towards butterflies. The reverse pattern was
true for explicit positivity towards butterflies.
Correlations of explicit measures with approach

avoidance indices of the feedback-joystick task
were only partly as expected. In particular, the
spider fear scales were not significantly correlated
with the approach
avoidance indices. Yet, explicit
positivity towards spiders was positivity correlated

Table 3. Correlations among the measures in Experiment 3
1 2
1. FAS * .85***
2. SAS * .53***
3. Explicit evaluation of spider pictures
4. Explicit evaluation of butterfly pictures
5. Manikin approach bias towards spiders
6. Manikin approach bias tw. butterflies
7. FB-Joystick approach bias towards spiders
8. FB-Joystick approach bias towards
butterflies

Note: pB.10; *p B.05; **pB.01; ***p B.001.
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
with approach biases towards spiders and nega-
tively, but not significantly, correlated with ap-
proach biases towards butterflies. The reverse
pattern was true for explicit positivity towards
butterflies. The manikin approach biases were not
significantly correlated with the feedback-joystick
approach biases.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present research compared the sensitivity and
criterion-validity of the joystick task (cf. Chen &
Bargh, 1999), the feedback-joystick task (Rinck &
Becker, 2007), and the manikin task (De Houwer
et al., 2001). Based on an analysis of procedural
differences between the tasks, we expected the
manikin task to outperform the joystick tasks.
Within the joystick tasks, the feedback-joystick
was expected to be superior to the traditional
joystick task. In addition, we compared the
MAAB with respect to their reliability for
exploratory reasons.
Sensitivity
Across three experiments, the manikin task had
larger effect sizes than the joystick tasks. This
suggests that the manikin task is a more sensitive
measure in mapping the valence-induced activa-
tion of approach
avoidance schemata. This was
true when participants responded according to the
valence of positive and negative words (Experiment
MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR
3 4 5 6 7 8
.45*** .07 .22  .18 .04 .01
.02 .29* .19 .08 .01
* .29* .43** .40** .29* .14
* .24  .22  .26* .09
* .33* .12 .12
* .09 .02
* .18
*
1) as well as when valence was task-irrelevant and
thus participants probably had no intention of
processing the stimulus valence (Experiment 2a).
Also, the manikin task was more sensitive than the
feedback-joystick task when participants re-
sponded to spider and butterfly pictures (Experi-
ment 3). Although we did not compare the
traditional and the feedback-joystick task within
one experiment, Experiments 2a and 2b indicate
that only the feedback-joystick but not the tradi-
tional joystick task led to compatibility effects
when participants are not required to process
stimulus valence. In all experiments, the compat-
ibility effects in the manikin task were significant
with nearly all applied outlier correction proce-
dures, whereas the compatibility effects in both
joystick tasks were significant only with few
correction procedures. In sum, the sensitivity
results indicate that the manikin task is a valid
measure of the valence-induced activation of
approach
avoidance schemata, even in the absence
of evaluation intentions. The same is true for the
feedback-joystick task, yet with the constraint that
the measure is highly susceptible for the outlier
correction method. The joystick task is only a valid
measure of the valence-induced activation of
approach
avoidance schemata when participants
have evaluation intentions, yet with the constraint
that the measure is highly susceptible for the outlier
correction method.
The greater sensitivity of the manikin task
might be due to two reasons. First, recategorisation
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 823
 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH
of the responses is less likely in the manikin than in
both joystick tasks. The motivational orientation
view (Neumann et al., 2003; Strack & Deutsch,
2004) as well as the evaluative coding account
(Eder & Rothermund, 2008; Lavender & Hom-
mel, 2007) suggest that the sensitivity of MAAB
should decrease with the likelihood of recategoris-
ing the responses. Second, according to the
motivational orientation view, MAAB can be
expected to be more sensitive to the valence-
induced activation of approach
avoidance sche-
mata when the means of distance regulation is
running towards/away as compared to moving the
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
object. Particularly, movements of the self might
be a more universal and, hence, more automatised
means of distance change than moving the object.
To what degree recategorisation or means of
distance change caused the differences in the
sensitivity has to be investigated in further experi-
ments. To this end, the likelihood of recategorisa-
tion and the means of distance change should be
manipulated independently within the same task.
One central question of the present work was
whether the different MAAB are differentially
sensitive to valence in the absence of intentions to
evaluate the stimuli. Previous research revealed
inconsistent findings regarding this question. For
instance, Lavender and Hommel (2007) concluded
that the activation of approach
avoidance re-
sponses depends on the intention to process
stimulus valence (cf. Roelofs, Minelli, Mars, van
Peer, & Toni, 2009; Rotteveel & Phaf, 2004).
Diverging from this view, De Houwer et al. (2001)
suggested that stimulus valence is processed in the
absence of the intention to do so, given that the
semantic representation of the stimulus is acti-
vated. In other words, if the experimental setup
allows for processing the semantic meaning of the
stimulus, then the valence is processed and compa-
tible behavioural tendencies are activated. Our
findings support this notion, given that participants
based their approach
avoidance decision on noun
vs. adjective categorisations of the valent words.
Presumably, this requires participants to engage in
some semantic analysis of the words and should
thus increase the chances of non-intentional influ-
ences of valence. Moreover, our findings extend the
824 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)
conclusions of De Houwer et al. (2001) in
demonstrating that the representation of the
approach
avoidance behaviour is also a crucial
factor for non-intentional influences of valence.
In particular, we observed significant effects of
stimulus valence on approach
avoidance behaviour
even in the absence of evaluative intentions, but
mainly in the manikin task. Whereas in the feed-
back-joystick task the compatibility effect reached
significance with only one outlier correction
method, the traditional joystick task did not reveal
significant compatibility effects. Together with the
results of Experiment 1, these findings suggest that
unintentional evaluations result in weaker activa-
tions of approach
avoidance schemata than inten-
tional evaluations and that the more sensitive a
MAAB is the more likely it can detect weak
activations of approach
avoidance schemata.
The present research suggests that the null-
effects in Lavender and Hommel’s (2007) as well as
Rotteveel and Phaf’s (2004) experiments might be
due to the operationalisation of the approach

avoidance reactions. In particular, in Lavender
and Hommel’s task, participants moved a little
doll towards or away from the screen. Thus, the
means of distance change is moving towards/away.
Although this implies a high sensitivity according
to our analysis, the opportunity of recategorisation
might have reduced the sensitivity of the task. In
particular, in Lavender and Hommel’s experimen-
tal setup the relationship between the concrete
response and the meaning of the behaviour in
terms of approach
avoidance is fixed. Across all
trials, moving forward means approach and mov-
ing backward means avoidance. As a consequence,
participants can easily recategorise the behaviour,
for instance, as moving forward and backward,
thereby undermining the internal validity of the
task. In Rotteveel and Phaf’s study, participants
move their hand upward or downward to press
buttons that are located on a vertical stand. As
Rotteveel and Phaf sought to test effects on the
activation of muscles that have been related to
approach (i.e., the flexor muscle) and avoidance
(i.e., the extensor muscle), they did not instruct
their participants in terms of approach
avoidance
movements. Thus, the responses are unlikely to be

mentally represented as approach
avoidance
movements. Taken together, the operationalisa-
tions of the approach
avoidance behaviours might
have decreased the sensitivity of the tasks em-
ployed in these two studies. Given our analysis, it
might seem surprising that Chen and Bargh (1999)
found an effect of task-irrelevant valence on lever
responses. However, our reasoning does not imply
that it is impossible to find such effects with lever
movements, but only that the likelihood is reduced
as compared to other measures such as the manikin
task.
In sum, the present findings suggest that
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
valence activates approach
avoidance responses
even in the absence of evaluation intentions, and
in order to find such effects in MAAB, the
responses have to be clearly represented as
approach
avoidance behaviours. The present re-
sults are in line with research on defensive reflexes
showing that passively viewing valent pictures
modulates the startle response (e.g., Bradley et al.,
2001; Lang et al., 1990). Together, these lines of
evidence support the notion that the perception of
emotionally significant stimuli immediately re-
sults in the activation of action dispositions
towards approach and avoidance, respectively.
Criterion validity
With respect to criterion-validity, the manikin task
outperformed the feedback-joystick task in the
domain of spider approach
avoidance motivations
(Experiment 3). In particular, whereas spider
approach
avoidance indices of the manikin task
correlated with self-reported fear of spiders as well
as with explicit spider evaluations, spider ap-
proach
avoidance indices of the feedback-joystick
task correlated only with explicit spider evalua-
tions. Although we expected the manikin task to
have a higher criterion-validity, we were surprised
that the feedback-joystick was uncorrelated with
explicit fear of spiders because Rinck and Becker
(2007) found such a relationship. One reason for
this divergence might be slight differences in the
experimental procedure. Rinck and Becker’s task
consisted of more trials than ours (320 trial as
compared to 96 trials), and their control pictures
MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR
showed the same background as the spider pictures
but not the spider. One limitation of the present
research is that we only used self-reported fear of
spider as a validity criterion. As self-reports might
be distorted by self-presentation motives, real
behaviour measures such as the spider approach
test (cf. Rinck & Becker, 2007) might be better
validity criteria. Indeed, Rinck and Becker (2007)
found that approach
avoidance indices of the
feedback-joystick task predicted real behaviour in
the spider approach test over and above self-
reported spider fear. These issues notwithstanding,
our results indicate that the manikin task is more
robust against the effects of variations in metho-
dological details.
In addition to correlations with explicit mea-
sures, we also examined the correlations among
the various MAAB. In all experiments, the
approach
avoidance indices of the manikin and
the joystick tasks were positively, but not sig-
nificantly correlated. This might be due to several
reasons. First, if the likelihood of recategorisa-
tions of the responses influences the internal
validity of the tasks then this feature should also
decrease the correlations among the measures.
Second, low internal consistencies may limit the
correlations. This explanation applies for Experi-
ment 2a, in which valence was task irrelevant.
Third, given that the MAAB reflect motivational
orientations they might assess different subtypes
of approach
avoidance motivations. In particular,
there might be individual differences in the
preferred means of distance regulation (i.e., run-
ning towards/away vs. changing the position of
the object) as well as personsituation interac-
tions regarding the preferred means. This might
be especially relevant in the domain of spider fear.
Whereas individuals with high fear of spiders
would prefer to run away from the spider,
individuals with medium fear of spiders might
prefer to take the spider and put it outside the
room.
Reliability
Across all MAAB, reliability was satisfactory when
participants responded according to the to-be-
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 825
 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH
measured feature of the stimuli (Experiments 1 and
3). When, however, participants were not required
to process the to-be-measured feature (Experi-
ments 2a and 2b), reliability was low. The various
MAAB did not differ in their reliability. Surpris-
ingly, the manikin and the feedback-joystick task
even had negative reliabilities in Experiments 2a
and 2b. Although reliability coefficients theoreti-
cally vary between 0 and 1, it is still possible that,
empirically, they are negative. According to Cron-
bach and Hartmann (1954) negative coefficients
can arise when the test has zero internal consistency
because of ‘‘chance fluctuations in splitting the test’’
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
(p. 343). According to these authors, negative
reliability coefficients should be interpreted as
zero reliability.
Our reliability findings are in line with what
has been reported in the domain of implicit
attitude measures (De Houwer & De Bruycker,
2007a, 2007b) as well as in the domain of implicit
self-concept measures (Teige, Schnabel, Banse, &
Asendorpf, 2004). It is plausible that at least some
processing of the to-be-measured feature of the
stimuli is necessary for its influence on task
performance. Consequently, reliability can be
expected to be reduced by compromising partici-
pants’ processing of the feature of interest (cf. De
Houwer, 2008). Supporting this reasoning, some
studies found an increase of the reliability when
the task was modified in such a way that
participants were required to process the to-be-
measured feature (De Houwer & De Bruycker,
2007a; Olson & Fazio, 2003). A second reason for
the low reliability when valence is task irrelevant
might be that individual differences in approach

avoidance reactions towards normatively positive
and negative words are small. If this reasoning is
true, then the high reliability in Experiment 1
might be due to method-specific variance like
individual differences in executive control pro-
cesses. In particular, as the design involved two
blocks with different response rules (i.e., a
compatible and an incompatible block), the task
might also assess individual differences in the
ability to switch between different response rules
(cf. Mierke & Klauer, 2003).
826 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)
Conclusions
In summary, the present findings suggest that the
sensitivity and the criterion-validity of MAAB
strongly depend on the operationalisation of the
approach
avoidance behaviour. Across all experi-
ments, the manikin task outperformed the joy-
stick tasks in this respect. The superiority of the
manikin task might be due to low recategorisation
of approach
avoidance responses and/or due to
the means of distance change (i.e., running
towards/away instead of moving the object).
Importantly, given a sensitive MAAB, valence
can be shown to activate approach
avoidance
reactions, even in the absence of evaluation
intentions.
Manuscript received 22 August 2008
Revised manuscript received 13 May 2009
Manuscript accepted 14 May 2009
First published online 16 December 2009
REFERENCES
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J.
(2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Re-
view, 111, 1061
1071.
Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Cuthbert, B. N., &
Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation I:
Defensive and appetitive reactions in picture proces-
sing. Emotion, 1, 276
298.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion.
Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 191
214.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Priester, J. R. (1993). Rudimentary
determinants of attitudes: II. Arm flexion and
extension have differential effects on attitudes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5
17.
Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of
automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral
predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215

224.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Coombes, S. A., Cauraugh, J. H., & Janelle, C. M.
(2007). Emotional state and initiating cue alter

central and peripheral motor processes. Emotion, 7,
275
284.
Cronbach, L. J., & Hartmann, W. (1954). A note on
negative reliabilities. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 14, 342
346.
De Houwer, J. (2008). Comparing measures of atti-
tudes at the functional and procedural level: Analysis
and implications. In R. E. Petty, R. H. Fazio, &
P. Brinol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new
implicit measures. New York: Psychology press.
De Houwer, J., Crombez, G., Baeyens, F., & Hermans,
D. (2001). On the generality of the affective Simon
effect. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 189
206.
De Houwer, J., & De Bruycker, E. (2007a). The
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
identification-EAST as a valid measure of implicit
attitudes toward alcohol-related stimuli. Journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38,
133
143.
De Houwer, J., & De Bruycker, E. (2007b). The
Implicit Association Test outperforms the extrinsic
affective Simon task as an implicit measure of inter-
individual differences in attitudes. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 46, 401
421.
De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (1998). An affective variant
of the Simon paradigm. Cognition and Emotion,
12(1), 45
61.
De Houwer, J., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Spruyt, A., &
Moors, A. (2009). Implicit measures: A normative
analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 347

368.
Eder, A. B., & Rothermund, K. (2008). When do
motor behaviors (mis)match affective stimuli? An
evaluative coding view of approach and avoidance
reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-
eral, 137, 262
281.
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1990). Multiple
processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The
mode model as an integrative framework. Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75
109.
Fishbach, A., & Shah, J. Y. (2006). Self-control in
action: Implicit dispositions toward goals and away
from temptations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 820
832.
Gerdes, A. B. M., Alpers, G. W., & Pauli, P. (2007).
Toward and away from spiders: Attentional engage-
ment and disengagement in spider phobic patients.
Psychophysiology, 44, S35.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R.
(2003). Understanding and using the Implicit
Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.
MEASURES OF APPROACH
AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOUR
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197

216.
Hager, W., & Hasselhorn, M (Eds.). (1994). Handbuch
deutschsprachiger Wortnormen [Handbook of German
word norms]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz,
G. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC):
A framework for perception and action planning.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849
937.
Klauer, K. C., & Musch, J. (1999). Eine Normierung
unterschiedlicher Aspekte der evaluativen Berwer-
tung von 92 Substantiven [A standardization of
various aspects of the evaluation of 92 nouns].
Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30, 1
11.
Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of
motivation and attention. American Psychologist, 50,
372
385.
Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2008). Appetitive and
defensive motivation is the substrate of emotion. In
A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and
avoidance motivation (pp. 51
65). New York: Psy-
chology Press.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990).
Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex. Psycholo-
gical Review, 97, 377
395.
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., &
Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affec-
tive, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions.
Psychophysiology, 30, 261
273.
Lavender, T., & Hommel, B. (2007). Affect and action:
Towards an event-coding account. Cognition and
Emotion, 21, 1270
1296.
Markman, A. B., & Brendl, C. M. (2005). Constrain-
ing theories of embodied cognition. Psychological
Science, 16, 6
10.
Mierke, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). Method-specific
variance in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1180
1192.
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Field, M., & De Houwer, J.
(2003). Eye movements to smoking-related pictures
in smokers: Relationship between attentional biases
and implicit and explicit measures of stimulus
valence. Addiction, 98, 825
836.
Neumann, R., Förster, J., & Strack, F. (2003). Motor
compatibility: The bidirectional link between beha-
vior and evaluation. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer
(Eds.), The psychology of evaluation (pp. 371
391).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Neumann, R., Hülsenbeck, K., & Seibt, B. (2004).
Attitudes towards people with AIDS and avoidance
behavior: Automatic and reflective bases of behavior.
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5) 827
 KRIEGLMEYER AND DEUTSCH
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 543

550.
Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2003). Relations
between implicit measures of prejudice: What are
we measuring? Psychological Science, 14, 636
639.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction-
time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510
532.
Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Approach and
avoidance in fear of spiders. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38, 105
120.
Rinck, M., Bundschuh, S., Engler, S., Muller, A.,
Wissmann, J., Ellwart, T., et al. (2002). Reliability
and validity of German versions of three instruments
measuring fear of spiders. Diagnostica, 48, 141
149.
Downloaded by [King's College London] at 12:51 16 September 2017
Roelofs, K., Minelli, A., Mars, R. B., van Peer, J., &
Toni, I. (2009). On the neural control of social
emotional behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 4, 50
58.
Rotteveel, M., & Phaf, R. H. (2004). Automatic
affective evaluation does not automatically predis-
pose for arm flexion and extension. Emotion, 4, 156

172.
Schoenmakers, T., Wiers, R. W., & Field, M. (2008).
Effects of a low dose of alcohol on cognitive biases
and craving in heavy drinkers. Psychopharmacology,
197, 169
178.
Seibt, B., Neumann, R., Nussinson, R., & Strack, F.
(2008). Movement direction or change in distance?
Self and object related approach
avoidance move-
828 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2010, 24 (5)
ments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
713
720.
Solarz, A. K. (1960). Latency of instrumental responses
as a function of compatibility with the meaning of
eliciting verbal signs. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology, 59, 239
245.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a
correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245

251.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and
impulsive determinants of social behavior. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220
247.
Szymanski, J., & Odonohue, W. (1995). Fear of
Spiders Questionnaire. Journal of Behavior Therapy
and Experimental Psychiatry, 26, 31
34.
Teige, S., Schnabel, K., Banse, R., & Asendorpf, J. B.
(2004). Assessment of multiple implicit self-concept
dimensions using the Extrinsic Affective Simon
Task (EAST). European Journal of Personality, 18,
495
520.
van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008).
Approach and avoidance as action effects. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1298
1306.
Wiers, R. W., van Woerden, N., Smulders, F. T. Y., &
de Jong, P. J. (2002). Implicit and explicit alcohol-
related cognitions in heavy and light drinkers.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 648
658.
Wittenbrink, B., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (2007). Implicit
measures of attitudes. New York: Guilford Press.