↓ Skip to main content

Contrasting motivational orientation and evaluative coding accounts: on the need to differentiate the effectors of approach/avoidance responses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Contrasting motivational orientation and evaluative coding accounts: on the need to differentiate the effectors of approach/avoidance responses
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00563
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Kozlik, Roland Neumann, Ljubica Lozo

Abstract

Several emotion theorists suggest that valenced stimuli automatically trigger motivational orientations and thereby facilitate corresponding behavior. Positive stimuli were thought to activate approach motivational circuits which in turn primed approach-related behavioral tendencies whereas negative stimuli were supposed to activate avoidance motivational circuits so that avoidance-related behavioral tendencies were primed (motivational orientation account). However, recent research suggests that typically observed affective stimulus-response compatibility phenomena might be entirely explained in terms of theories accounting for mechanisms of general action control instead of assuming motivational orientations to mediate the effects (evaluative coding account). In what follows, we explore to what extent this notion is applicable. We present literature suggesting that evaluative coding mechanisms indeed influence a wide variety of affective stimulus-response compatibility phenomena. However, the evaluative coding account does not seem to be sufficient to explain affective S-R compatibility effects. Instead, several studies provide clear evidence in favor of the motivational orientation account that seems to operate independently of evaluative coding mechanisms. Implications for theoretical developments and future research designs are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 25%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 48%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,072,123
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,218
of 29,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,972
of 264,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#274
of 508 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,364 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 508 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.