Why did the preference for go stimuli increase from the first to second ratings when the participants attended to the picture stimuli in the go/no-go task? One possible explanation, which is contrary to the inhibitory account (Kiss et al., 2008; Doallo et al., 2012) is that preference ratings are affected by the execution, but not by the inhibition of a response. In fact, a recent study reported that items previously presented with a tone were more often selected as more preferable than items presented without the tone when participants were required to respond to the tone. However, this selection bias was not observed when participants were required to inhibit responses on hearing the tone (Schonberg et al., 2014). Assuming that go responses are viewed as approaching responses to go stimuli, it is possible that the stimuli paired with the go response acquired positive valence, as reported in a previous study indicating that stimuli paired with an approaching response acquired positive valence (Cacioppo et al., 1993). Consistent with this account, the preference for the go stimuli increased from the first to second ratings. According to this explanation, the lack of differences in the second preference rating (Experiment 3 in the present study) might indicate the importance of attention in associating the execution of the response with the stimuli presented at the response, which is similar to the importance of attention in the association between multiple stimuli (Field and Moore, 2012; Kattner, 2012). In addition, this account might be consistent with the result that increased effort to inhibit responses did not affect preference ratings (Experiment 2 in the present study).