Although an apparent devaluation effect occurred when participant’s attention was directed to the picture stimuli, this devaluation effect really reflected an increased preference for the go stimuli and not a decreased preference for the no-go stimuli. That is, we found no real devaluation effect through response inhibition, which is inconsistent with previous studies suggesting that response inhibition results in the devaluation of no-go stimuli (Kiss et al., 2008; Doallo et al., 2012). Note that these studies used a similar procedure as that in the present study but they lacked a control condition. They only compared the go stimuli with the no-go stimuli following a go/no-go task. Therefore, it is plausible that the valuation of the go stimuli but not the devaluation of the no-go stimuli occurs when the blocks of go/no-go trials and rating trials are conducted alternately, as in this and previous studies (Kiss et al., 2008; Doallo et al., 2012). We do not suggest that devaluation through response inhibition does not occur in any situation (Veling et al., 2008). However, it is suggested that in certain situations different ratings between go and no-go stimuli might be attributed to the increased preference for attended go stimuli.