It is not only whether I approach but also why I approach: A registered report on the role of action framing in approach/avoidance training effects

Research on approach/avoidance training (AAT) effects shows that approach (i.e., reducing the distance between the self and a stimulus) leads to more positive evaluations of stimuli than avoidance (i.e., increasing the distance between the self and a stimulus). The present experiments relied on a grounded cognition approach to extend this finding by investigating the framing-dependency of AAT effects on facial representations of target stimuli. In a Preliminary Experiment, using antagonistic types of approach (affiliative vs. aggressive) and a reverse correlation paradigm, we found that approach led to more positive facial representations than avoidance when approach was portrayed as affiliative, but this effect decreased and tended to reverse (i.e., yielding more negative facial representations) when approach was portrayed as aggressive. Two registered experiments extended these results while also addressing important limitations of the Preliminary Experiment. First, to prevent any contrast emerging from the joint use of approach and avoidance, Experiment 1 isolated the unique effects of affiliative approach, aggressive approach, and avoidance compared to a control action. We also explored whether aggressive approach and avoidance (two negatively valenced yet distinct actions) produced negative effects characterized by divergent outcomes on facial features (e.g., weak vs. dominant). Second, Experiment 2 tested the importance of the experiential component of approach/avoidance actions by comparing the AAT with a mere instructions condition. Results of Experiments 1 and 2 proved consistent with a framing-dependency of AAT effects. Unveiling the framing-dependency of AAT effects challenges some of the current theoretical views on AAT effects.