Approach-Avoidance Tendencies and Physical Activity Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose. To examine the relationship between approach-avoidance tendencies and physical activity as well as the factors that influence this relationship. Methods. This systematic review with meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL from inception to March 2026. We included observational studies assessing associations between approach-avoidance tendencies and physical activity. Pearson product-moment correlations were pooled from eligible studies using the generic inverse pooling and random-effects method. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted to examine the effect of testing context, types of approach-avoidance tasks, types of physical activity measures, and stimulus type. Meta-regressions were conducted to examine the moderating effects of age, sex, and study quality score. Results. The main meta-analysis included 22 estimates from 18 studies (n = 2,070 participants). Results showed a small positive correlation between approach-avoidance tendencies and physical activity (r = 0.11, 95% CI [0.04, 0.18], p = 0.004). However, the estimate from Rücker’s limit meta-analysis, which models small-study effects, was no longer significant (r = 0.04, 95% CI [−0.08, 0.16], p = 0.488). Subgroup meta-analyses showed no evidence of differences according to physical activity measure, approach-avoidance task, or stimulus type, whereas differences were observed according to testing context (Q(1) = 4.90, p = 0.039), with only in-person studies yielding a significant association (p = 0.0006). Meta-regressions showed no evidence of moderating effects of age, sex, or study quality score. Conclusion. Our results suggest that the observed association between approach-avoidance tendencies and physical activity levels may be influenced by small-study effects and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Substantial methodological variability, along with the lack of validity and reliability studies, currently limits robust conclusions regarding this relationship. Recommendations are provided for future studies to increase comparability. Registration. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251034465).