Abstract
Executing go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses toward objects can increase people's choices of go over no-go items, and of approach over avoidance items. Some theoretical accounts explain these effects as the results of merely executing these 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 go/no-go and approach/avoidance responses, we employed a recently developed training that combined both 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). After the training, they repeatedly chose between food items (i.e., candies) for real consumption. When the instructions framed the responses as approach/avoidance actions, participants (N = 98) preferred approach items over avoidance items, but did not show preferences between go and no-go items in their choices. In contrast, when the instructions framed the responses as go/no-go actions, participants (N = 98) preferred go items over no-go items, but did not show preferences between approach and avoidance items. Despite making the same actual responses in both instruction groups, action interpretation determined whether go/no-go or approach/avoidance actions influenced food choice. Disambiguating the interpretation of motor responses as clearly valenced and meaningful actions may therefore be a fruitful way to maximize the effectiveness of response-based behavioral interventions.