In addition to the inhibition of attention, response inhibition required in the go/no-go or stop signal tasks also resulted in distractor devaluation (Fenske et al., 2005; Kiss et al., 2008; Veling et al., 2008; Buttaccio and Hahn, 2010; Doallo et al., 2012; Frischen et al., 2012; Wessel et al., 2014). In one of the studies (Kiss et al., 2008), participants were presented with a sequence of stimuli consisting of Asian and Caucasian faces. They were required to respond, by a key press, to the specified category of face (e.g., Asian face; go stimuli), whereas they were asked to refrain from responding to the other category of face (e.g., Caucasian face; no-go stimuli). In a subsequent rating task, participants had to rate the trustworthiness of the faces that had appeared in the preceding go/no-go task. Results indicated that the no-go stimuli were rated less trustworthy than the go-stimuli. The difference was attributed to the decreased trustworthiness for the no-go stimuli but not the increased trustworthiness for the go stimuli because the electrophysiological measure of response inhibition (i.e., nogo-N2) was associated with the negative evaluation of the no-go stimuli. The relationship between emotional devaluation and response inhibition was also confirmed in a neuroimaging study using functional magnetic resonance imaging (Doallo et al., 2012), which demonstrated that the activity in the lateral prefrontal cortex related to response suppression in the go/no-go task was involved in the distractor devaluation effect. However, as these two studies only compared go stimuli with no-go stimuli, they lacked a control condition (e.g., the presentation of unexposed stimuli). Further, several behavioral studies showed that no-go stimuli or stimuli presented with a no-go cue were devaluated when compared with stimuli in the control condition (Fenske et al., 2005; Veling et al., 2008). For example, following the go/no-go task where participants made a go/no-go response depending on the category of a letter superimposed on a picture, they rated the pictures associated with the no-go cue as less attractive than either novel pictures or pictures associated with the go cue (Veling et al., 2008).