PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

846

Title *

Examining the role of action interpretation in changes in choice induced by go/no-go and approach/avoidance responsesuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Zhang Chen, Pieter Van Dessel, Bernd Figner Please use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2024

Picture

Abstract *

<p>Executing go/no-go (GNG) and approach/avoidance (AAT) responses toward objects can increase people’s choices for go over no-go items, and for approach over avoidance items. Some theoretical accounts explain these effects as the results of merely executing GNG and AAT responses (i.e., action execution), while others propose that these choice effects stem from interpreting these motor responses as valenced actions (i.e., action interpretation). To test the role of action execution versus action interpretation in both GNG and AAT, Chen and Van Dessel (2024) recently developed a training that combined both action dimensions orthogonally: participants either pressed a key or not (i.e., go/no-go) to control a shopping cart on screen, to either collect or not collect certain food items (i.e., approach/avoidance). Importantly, despite making the same actual responses, either a GNG or AAT effect on stimulus evaluation emerged depending on whether task cues referred to the GNG or AAT dimension. Action interpretation thus determines the effects of GNG and AAT on evaluations. Using the same training, the current Registered Report will examine the role of action interpretation in the effects of GNG and AAT on choice, measured by letting participants repeatedly choose between food items for consumption after training. The results will have theoretical implications for how actions influence stimulus value and resulting consumption behavior, and will offer practical insights into enhancing the effectiveness of these interventions in applied settings.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

go/no-go, approach/avoidance, choice, action execution, action interpretation, Registered Report

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2024-06-17 17:57:07

Recommender

Andrew Jones

Reviewers

Alexander MacLellan, Katrijn Houben

or Register
Submit a report