Results show:
-Faces were evaluated most positively when actions led to rewards.
-Faces were evaluated most negatively when inactions led to avoiding punishments.
-Faces were evaluated more negatively when inactions (vs. actions) led to avoiding punishments, showing the unique impact of inactions.
After learning, people were asked to evaluate the faces. (4/5)
Results on learning show that:
-People found it easier to act to get rewards than to avoid punishments.
-People found it easier to not act to avoid punishments than to get rewards.
-There was no difference in learning to act or not act to avoid punishments. (3/5)
In our experiments, people learned to act (action) or not act (inaction) in response to images of faces to get rewards or avoid punishments. (2/5)
New paper in JESP: "On rewarded actions and punishment-avoidant inactions: The action–valence asymmetry in face perception.”
In four preregistered experiments, we show that inactions influence evaluations of faces. (1/5)
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Results show:
-Faces were evaluated most positively when actions led to rewards.
-Faces were evaluated most negatively when inactions led to avoiding punishments.
-Faces were evaluated more negatively when inactions (vs. actions) led to avoiding punishments, showing the unique impact of inactions.
After learning, people were asked to evaluate the faces. (4/5)
Results on learning show that:
-People found it easier to act to get rewards than to avoid punishments.
-People found it easier to not act to avoid punishments than to get rewards.
-There was no difference in learning to act or not act to avoid punishments. (3/5)
In our experiments, people learned to act (action) or not act (inaction) in response to images of faces to get rewards or avoid punishments. (2/5)
