000			01990nam a22002777a 4500
003			ZW-GwMSU
005			20221212104723.0
008			221212b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aMSU _cMSU _erda
100			_aWoud, Marcella L. _eauthor
245			_aMake the manikin move: Symbolic approach–avoidance responses affect implicit and explicit face evaluations _ccreated by Marcella L. Woud, Joyce Maas, Eni S. Becker, Mike Rinck
264			_aNetherlands : _bTaylor & Francis; _c2013
336			_2rdacontent _atext _btxt
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc
440			_vVolume , number ,
520			_aThe present research aimed to replicate and extend findings of Huijding, Muris, Lester, Field, and Joosse (2011), investigating whether symbolic approach–avoidance responses can induce implicit and explicit evaluation biases. Faces with a neutral expression were shown on a computer screen, and participants were instructed to repeatedly move a manikin towards some faces (approach) and away from other faces (avoidance). An affective priming task and a face rating task were used to assess training-compatible differences in implicit and explicit face evaluations, respectively. Results showed that the manikin training was successful: The priming task revealed more positive implicit evaluations of approached than avoided faces, and approached faces were rated more positively than avoided ones in the face rating task. These findings replicate those of Huijding and colleagues by demonstrating training effects on explicit evaluations, and they extend them by demonstrating effects on implicit evaluations.
650			_aApproach–avoidance training
650			_aImplicit and explicit face evaluations
650			_aManikin task
700			_aMaas, Joyce _eauthor
700			_aBecker, Eni S. _eauthor
700			_aRinck, Mike _eauthor
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.817413
942			_2lcc _cJA
999			_c160751 _d160751