Jacobsen, Thomas

Approaching rewards and avoiding punishments is a fundamental aspect of behavior, yet individuals differ in the extent of these behavioral tendencies. One popular method to assess differences in approach-avoidance tendencies and even modify them, is using behavioral tasks in which spontaneous responses to differently valenced stimuli are assessed (e.g., the visual joystick and the manikin task). Understanding whether these reaction-time-based tasks map onto the same underlying constructs, how they predict interindividual differences in theoretically related constructs and how reliable they are, seems vital to make informed judgements about current findings and future studies. In this preregistered study, 168 participants (81 self-identified men, 87 women) completed emotional face versions of these tasks as well as an alternative, foraging-based paradigm, the approach-avoidance-conflict task, and answered self-report questionnaires regarding anxiety, aggression, depressive symptoms, behavioral inhibition and activation. Importantly, approach-avoidance outcome measures of the two reaction-time-based tasks were unrelated with each other, showed little relation to self-reported interindividual differences and had subpar internal consistencies. In contrast, the approach-avoidance-conflict task was related to behavioral inhibition and aggression, and had good internal consistencies. Our study highlights the need for more research into optimizing behavioral approach-avoidance measures when using task-based approach-avoidance measures to assess interindividual differences.

Rationale Balancing approach of positive and avoidance of negative stimuli is essential when faced with approach-avoidance conflicts, e.g., situations with both positive and negative outcomes. This balance is disturbed in several mental disorders, e.g., excessive avoidance in anxiety disorders, and heightened approach in substance use disorders. Since stress is assumed to impact these disorders’ etiology and maintenance, it seems crucial to understand how stress influences behavior in approach-avoidance conflicts. Indeed, some studies suggested altered approach-avoidance behavior under acute stress, but the mechanism underlying these effects is unknown. Objectives Investigate how the pharmacological manipulation of major stress mediators (cortisol and noradrenaline) influences task-based approach-avoidance conflict behavior in healthy individuals. Methods Ninety-six participants (48 women, 48 men) received either 20mg hydrocortisone, 20mg yohimbine, both, or placebo before performing a task targeting foraging under predation in a fully crossed double-blind between-subject design. Moreover, we investigated effects of gender and endogenous testosterone and estradiol levels on approach-avoidance behavior. Results While biological stress markers (cortisol concentration, alpha amylase activity) indicated successful pharmacological manipulation, behavior in approach-avoidance conflicts was not affected as expected. Although yohimbine administration affected risky foraging latency under predation, we found no main effect of hydrocortisone or their interaction on behavior. In contrast, we found gender differences for almost all behavioral outcome measures, which might be explained by differences in endogenous testosterone levels. Conclusions The investigated major stress mediators were not sufficient to imitate previously shown stress effects on approach-avoidance conflict behavior. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for future research.

Public attitude toward Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) has been extensively researched, frequently using surveys or experimental settings involving sound/noise. In this study, we present an experiment using visual stimuli, exploring not only the acceptance of UAVs as such but also of their interactions with different environments. The stimuli were pictures of quadcopters, either white or orange, with medical or commercial markings. For comparison, pictures of helicopters with the same four variations and a goose were also used. These pictures were superimposed over three types of backgrounds: urban, industrial, and rural. Twenty-four student participants took part in this study, each responding to 81 stimuli with Likert scale ratings for the acceptance and beauty of the stimuli after responding to objects that were used as a manipulation check. Reaction times for all responses were recorded. Afterward, participants completed a survey designed to identify the reasons for their judgments regarding acceptance. Our results deliver a complex view of the acceptance of UAVs. For example, the usage of the UAV had the largest impact on acceptance, with medical usage having the highest acceptance rating. Commercial usage was more accepted in industrial areas, and UAVs were more accepted than helicopters. The survey showed a heterogeneous variety and relevance of reasons for the acceptance ratings. On average, usefulness, traffic relief, reduction of privacy, and acceptance by society were indicated as the most relevant factors affecting the acceptance ratings. In general, our study suggests that the less considered visual factors of drones (salience in our study) can be expected to influence the acceptance of UAVs in addition to the noise factor. Most importantly, the physical characteristics of UAVs alone are insufficient to predict their acceptance. The purposes for which UAVs are used (that might be visually recognizable) and the environment in which they are operated play an important role in shaping public attitudes towards this new technology.

Our theoretical model (Menninghaus et al., 2019) defines aesthetic emotions by reference to their role in aesthetic evaluation, and specifically as being predictive of aesthetic liking/disliking. Skov and Nadal (2020) dismiss the construct of "aesthetic emotions" as a "dated supposition" adopted from a "speculative" tradition and assert that there are no such emotions. Accordingly, they question all pieces of empirical evidence we referred to as supporting our model. In our response, we rebut these objections point by point and defend as well as expand the empirical evidence in support of our model. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Performance in task switching experiments is worse when the current stimulus is associated with different responses in the two tasks (i.e., incongruent condition) than when it is associated with the same response (i.e., congruent condition). This congruency effect reflects some sort of application of the irrelevant task's stimulus-response translation rules. Manipulating the recency and the proportion of congruent and incongruent trials results in a modulation of the congruency effect (i.e., Congruency Sequence Effect, CSE, and Proportion Congruency Effect, PCE, respectively), suggesting attentional adjustment of processing weights. Here, we investigated the impact of task switching practice on the congruency effect and the modulation thereof by (a) re-analyzing the data of a task switching experiment involving six consecutive sessions and (b) conducting a novel four-session experiment in which the proportions of congruent and incongruent trials were manipulated. Although practice appeared to reduce the reaction times overall and the task switch costs (i.e., slower reaction times after task switches than after task repetitions) to an asymptotic level, the congruency effect as well as its modulations remained remarkably constant. These findings thus do not provide evidence that conflict effects between tasks and attentional adjustment are affected by task switching practice.

Interference evoked by a distractor presented prior to a target stimulus is reduced when the distractor-target SOA is increased, suggesting inhibition of distractor-related activation. Distractor processing is also assumed to be (strategically) adjusted to the proportions of congruent and incongruent target-distractor combinations, yielding a larger distractor interference effect when the proportion of congruent trials is higher (i.e., Proportion Congruent Effect, PCE). To explore the interplay of proportion congruent-based processing adjustment and the time course of distractor-related activation we varied the proportions of congruent and incongruent trials as well as the distractor-target SOA. To control for item-specific priming we kept distractor-related contingencies (i.e., frequency of individual distractor-target conjunctions) constant for a subset of the stimuli (and used a different subset to manipulate the proportions of congruent and incongruent trials). A PCE occurred, even for the subset of stimuli associated with constant distractor-related contingencies, thus ruling out item-specific contingency learning. Distractor interference was reduced when the SOA was increased, but this reduction did not differ between the proportion congruent conditions, as confirmed by a Bayesian analysis. Our results are consistent with independent processes pertaining to usage of distractor information for biasing response selection and distractor inhibition during the SOA. Alternative interpretations of the independent effects of the PC manipulation and the distractor-target SOA are discussed.

Electrophysiological recording in a temporal flanker task (i.e., distractors preceding the targets) has demonstrated that distractor processing is adjusted to the overall utility of the distractors. Under high utility, that is, distractors are predictive of the target/response, distractors immediately activate the corresponding response (as indicated by the lateralized readiness potential, LRP). This activation has been shown to be markedly postponed when the target predictably occurs delayed. To investigate the occurrence and time course of distractor-related response activation under conditions of unpredictable target onset, we randomly varied the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between distractors and targets and recorded the distractor-evoked LRP. When the distractor utility was high, an LRP occurred shortly after distractor presentation. In case of a long SOA the time course of this LRP was characterized by a drop back to baseline and a subsequent re-activation that reached a substantial level before target onset. These results suggest that distractor processing is characterized by sophisticated adjustments to experienced utility and temporal constraints of the task as well as by further control processes that regulate premature response activation. © 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Scientific disciplines as diverse as biology, physics, and psychological aesthetics regard symmetry as one of the most important principles in nature and one of the most powerful determinants of beauty. However, symmetry has a low standing in the arts and humanities. This difference in the valuation of symmetry is a remarkable illustration of the gap between the two cultures. To close this gap, we conducted an interdisciplinary, empirical study to directly demonstrate the effects of art expertise on symmetry appreciation. Two groups of art experts—artists and art historians—and a group of non-experts provided spontaneous beauty ratings of visual stimuli that varied in symmetry and complexity. In complete contrast to responses typically found in non-art experts, art experts found asymmetrical and simple stimuli as most beautiful. This is evidence of the effects of specific education and training on aesthetic appreciation and a direct challenge to the universality of symmetry. © The Author(s) 2018.

Comments on article by Scherer et al. (see record 2018-16097-001). In their study, Scherer et al. explore the aesthetic experience of opera spectators using a 12-item fuzzy emotion questionnaire. Hence, they make a contribution to the emerging endeavors to conduct empirical aesthetic studies in the field. Laboratory studies of aesthetic appreciation may, to some extent, be limited with respect to ecological validity. Investigating aesthetic appreciation in the context of its usual occurrence—and, by association, investigating aesthetic appreciation in a fully ecologically valid way—is a desideratum of today’s research. Attempting to classify (field) studies across domains of aesthetic appreciation spans up an at least three-dimensional (3D) space, constituted by factors such as settings, sensors, and tasks. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)