A meta-analysis of the facilitation of arm flexion and extension movements as a function of stimulus valence.
Saved in:
| Title: | A meta-analysis of the facilitation of arm flexion and extension movements as a function of stimulus valence. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Laham, Simon M. (AUTHOR), Kashima, Yoshihisa (AUTHOR), Dix, Jennifer (AUTHOR), Wheeler, Melissa (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Cognition & Emotion. Sep2015, Vol. 29 Issue 6, p1069-1090. 22p. 5 Charts, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Meta-analysis, Group facilitation (Psychology), Stimulus & response (Psychology), Emotions, Attitude-behavior consistency |
| Abstract: | This article presents a meta-analysis of research on theaffective compatibility effect: the relative facilitation of arm flexion and extension movements, in response to positive and negative stimuli, respectively. Across 68 effect sizes (computed on 3169 participants), a small, significant average compatibility effect emerged (ES = .118; 95% CI [.051, .185]). Importantly, analyses also revealed significant heterogeneity in the set of effect sizes. Moderator analyses were conducted to explain this observed heterogeneity with a view to testing between extant theoretical accounts of the compatibility effect. Affective compatibility effects were significantly larger (1) for face stimuli than for words or pictorial stimuli; (2) when the negative stimuli partly comprising the effect were anger-related; (3) for responses made using vertical button press; (4) when situated aspects of the processing task framed flexion as approach and extension as avoidance; and (5) when explicit response labels framed flexion as positive and extension as negative. Significant reverse compatibility effects emerged (1) when aspects of the processing context framed flexion as avoidance and extension as approach and (2) when explicit response labels framed flexion as negative and extension as positive. The results of the meta-analysis provide little support for the strong embodiment, specific muscle activation account of affective compatibility and are broadly consistent with distance regulation, and, in particular, evaluative coding accounts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Cognition & Emotion is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | This article presents a meta-analysis of research on theaffective compatibility effect: the relative facilitation of arm flexion and extension movements, in response to positive and negative stimuli, respectively. Across 68 effect sizes (computed on 3169 participants), a small, significant average compatibility effect emerged (ES = .118; 95% CI [.051, .185]). Importantly, analyses also revealed significant heterogeneity in the set of effect sizes. Moderator analyses were conducted to explain this observed heterogeneity with a view to testing between extant theoretical accounts of the compatibility effect. Affective compatibility effects were significantly larger (1) for face stimuli than for words or pictorial stimuli; (2) when the negative stimuli partly comprising the effect were anger-related; (3) for responses made using vertical button press; (4) when situated aspects of the processing task framed flexion as approach and extension as avoidance; and (5) when explicit response labels framed flexion as positive and extension as negative. Significant reverse compatibility effects emerged (1) when aspects of the processing context framed flexion as avoidance and extension as approach and (2) when explicit response labels framed flexion as negative and extension as positive. The results of the meta-analysis provide little support for the strong embodiment, specific muscle activation account of affective compatibility and are broadly consistent with distance regulation, and, in particular, evaluative coding accounts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02699931 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/02699931.2014.968096 |
