Research Group of Quantitative Psychology and Individual Differences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Centre for Social and Cultural Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2020 Jun;20(3):648-657. doi: 10.3758/s13415-020-00793-6.
Dual-process models with a default-interventionist architecture explain early emotional action tendencies by a stimulus-driven process, and they allow goal-directed processes to intervene only in a later stage. An alternative dual-process model with a parallel-competitive architecture developed by Moors, Boddez, and De Houwer (Emotion Review, 9(4), 310-318, 2017), in contrast, explains early emotional action tendencies by a goal-directed process. This model proposes that stimulus-driven and goal-directed processes often operate in parallel and compete with each other, and that if they do compete, the goal-directed process often wins the competition. To examine these predictions, we set up a goal-directed process in an experimental group by rewarding participants for avoiding positive stimuli and for approaching negative stimuli and punishing them for the opposite behavior. We expected this process to compete with a potentially preexisting stimulus-driven process in which positive stimuli are associated with approach and negative stimuli with avoidance. We compared the elicited action tendencies of participants in this group with a control group in which only the stimulus-driven process could operate. Early approach and avoidance tendencies were assessed via motor evoked potentials (MEP) measured in the finger muscles previously trained to approach or to avoid stimuli after single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) delivered at 400 ms. Results confirmed that positive/negative stimuli led to stronger avoidance/approach tendencies in the experimental group but not to approach/avoidance tendencies in the control group. This suggests that goal-directed processes are indeed able to determine relatively early emotional action tendencies, but it does not show that goal-directed process can defeat stimulus-driven processes.
双加工模型具有默认干预架构，通过刺激驱动过程来解释早期的情绪动作倾向，并且仅在后期允许目标导向过程进行干预。相比之下，由 Moors、Boddez 和 De Houwer（《情感评论》，9（4），310-318，2017）开发的具有并行竞争架构的替代双加工模型通过目标导向过程来解释早期的情绪动作倾向。该模型提出，刺激驱动和目标导向过程通常并行运作并相互竞争，如果它们确实竞争，目标导向过程通常会获胜。为了检验这些预测，我们在实验组中通过奖励参与者避免积极刺激和接近消极刺激，并惩罚他们的相反行为来建立一个目标导向过程。我们期望这个过程与一个潜在的预先存在的刺激驱动过程竞争，在这个过程中，积极刺激与接近相关，消极刺激与回避相关。我们将实验组和对照组参与者的诱发动作倾向进行了比较，对照组中只能运作刺激驱动过程。早期的接近和回避倾向通过在单脉冲经颅磁刺激（TMS）后 400 毫秒时，在前臂肌肉中测量到的运动诱发电位（MEP）来评估，这些肌肉之前经过训练以接近或回避刺激。结果证实，积极/消极刺激会导致实验组更强的回避/接近倾向，但不会导致对照组的接近/回避倾向。这表明目标导向过程确实能够确定相对早期的情绪动作倾向，但它并没有表明目标导向过程可以击败刺激驱动过程。
