Revisiting the post-resolution positivity effect in conflict tasks: Meta-analytic and behavioral evidence for context-dependent affective valence of conflict resolution.

Theoretical accounts of control and behavior regulation suggest affect follows from control processing and that this affective response to control demands serves as a cue to upregulate control in the future. However, the valence of affective responses following control exertion remains unclear. We examined affective responses to conflict resolution in conflict tasks (e.g., Stroop and flanker) through meta-analyses, conceptual replications of three affective priming paradigms, and drift-diffusion modelling. Our meta-analysis of nine studies (30 effect-size estimates; N = 992 participants) using various affect measures yielded no overall effect. However, moderator analysis indicated that the post-resolution positivity effect can be found when using the active affective priming paradigm. Contrary to prior studies, our replication study (N = 66) failed to find a post-resolution positivity effect, and even showed the opposite pattern (post-resolution negativity) in one of three studies. This effect was captured by extra-decisional processes (t₀), aligning with prior modelling work on affective priming effects. In a separate meta-analysis of affective priming effects, we found that the post-resolution positivity effect size reduced as standard error decreased, and this pattern is suggestive of publication bias. Together, these findings question the assumption of universally positive affective responses to control exertion and suggest affective valence may be context-dependent.