Approach versus avoidance and the polarity principle-On an unrecognized ambiguity of the approach/avoidance paradigm.

The present study examined the role of polarity correspondence (Proctor & Cho, 2006) in the approach/avoidance task. It was hypothesized that the typically found approach/avoidance effect could (at least in part) be explained by matching polarities of the stimuli and the response alternatives. To test this hypothesis, polarity of the stimuli was manipulated in three experiments.

Emotional face expressions and group membership: Does affective mismatch induce conflict?

When asked to judge or react to a facial emotional display of a person, people do not only take the emotion into account, but also other socially important features of the face, such as, for example, ethnicity (Kozlik & Fischer, 2020; Paulus & Wentura, 2014). Importantly, the emotion-related and nonemotion-related features are seemingly not (or not always) processed in a simple, additive manner, but are-in a more functional manner-integrated to provide an "amalgamated signal" on which individuals base their judgment and responses. Whereas Paulus and Wentura (2014) put forward a social-message account of this amalgamated signal, Kozlik and Fischer (2020) recently proposed a processing-conflict explanation.

Involuntary evaluation of others' emotional expressions depends on the expresser's group membership. Further evidence for the social message account from the extrinsic affective Simon task.

The social message account (SMA) hypothesizes that the evaluation of emotional facial expressions depends on the ethnicity of the expressers. For example, according to SMA, a happy face of a member of a prejudiced ethnicity is immediately interpreted as potentially malevolent. Evidence for this approach was found initially in evaluative priming (EP) and approach-avoidance tasks (AA) by showing an emotion × ethnicity interaction on positivity scores (EP) and approach scores (AA), respectively.

Social Message Account or Processing Conflict Account - Which Processes Trigger Approach/Avoidance Reaction to Emotional Expressions of In- and Out-Group Members?

Faces are characterized by the simultaneous presence of several evaluation-relevant features, for example, emotional expression and (prejudiced) ethnicity. The social message account (SMA) hypothesizes the immediate integration of emotion and ethnicity. According to SMA, happy in-group faces should be interpreted as benevolent, whereas happy out-group faces should be interpreted as potentially malevolent.

One plus one is more than two: The interactive influence of group membership and emotional facial expressions on the modulation of the affective startle reflex.

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the evaluation of a face is not only influenced by the social message that is signaled by the face's emotional expression, but also by other social factors such as ethnicity or group membership. Studies in the field of startle research, however, have hitherto investigated only the effects of one of the two factors - that is, either emotional expression or group membership - on the startle response. Yet, we propose that the startle reflex is a sensitive marker for the interactive effect of both factors.

Positive Feeling, Negative Meaning: Visualizing the Mental Representations of In-Group and Out-Group Smiles.

Even though smiles are seen as universal facial expressions, research shows that there exist various kinds of smiles (i.e., affiliative smiles, dominant smiles).

It depends: Approach and avoidance reactions to emotional expressions are influenced by the contrast emotions presented in the task.

Studies examining approach and avoidance reactions to emotional expressions have yielded conflicting results. For example, expressions of anger have been reported to elicit approach reactions in some studies but avoidance reactions in others. Nonetheless, the results were often explained by the same general underlying process, namely the influence that the social message signaled by the expression has on motivational responses.

Gender of the expresser moderates the effect of emotional faces on the startle reflex.

It has been suggested that the impact of emotional expressions on the startle reflex is influenced by the intention communicated by the expression (e.g., the intention to attack).

Threatening joy: approach and avoidance reactions to emotions are influenced by the group membership of the expresser.

It has been repeatedly stated that approach and avoidance reactions to emotional faces are triggered by the intention signalled by the emotion. This line of thought suggests that each emotion signals a specific intention triggering a specific behavioural reaction. However, empirical results examining this assumption are inconsistent, suggesting that it might be too short-sighted.