Post-conflict speeding: Evidence of sequential effects in motivational conflicts.

Abstract

Sequential effects in conflict processing (postconflict slowing and conflict adaptation) have primarily been studied in stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) tasks. Moreover, results obtained in SRC paradigms are often proposed as a model of higher-level motivational conflicts. The authors present 3 experiments suggesting that motivational conflicts, such as approach-approach (AA) and avoidance-avoidance (VV) conflicts partially engage different processes than SRC conflicts and thus result in different sequential effects. Instead of postconflict slowing, they predicted speeding after AA conflicts because they expect the approach motivation component of AA conflicts to briefly increase action readiness. Second, the authors expected larger conflict adaptation in VV than AA conflicts because conflict adaptation is known to be enhanced by inducing negative affect. They conducted 3 experiments with varying intertrial intervals (intertrial interval [ITI]) in which participants repeatedly solved hypothetical motivational conflicts (AA, VV) and nonconflicts (NC). In all three experiments, the authors observed postconflict speeding after AA conflicts compared to NC when the ITI was short. Conflict adaptation proved to be less reliable. These results extend previous research on sequential effects in conflict resolution by showing that sequential effects emerge also in higher-level motivational AA and VV conflicts but partially follow different rules than in SRC paradigms. (PsycINFO Database Record

Motivation drives conflict adaptation.

“…Results from a reanalysis of a previous data set and a new replication provided converging evidence for motivational conflict-adaptation effect—prior motivational conflict alleviates future conflict. This is in line with recent research on decision making (Heitmann & Deutsch, 2019), showing faster decisions following motivational conflict compared to control trials. Moreover, it provides further support for theoretical accounts that aim to explain why and how people overcome obstacles during goal pursuit (e.g., Botvinick et al, 2001; Inzlicht et al, 2015; see also Shenhav, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2013).…”

The relative difficulty of resolving motivational conflicts is affective context-dependent.

“…In Study 2, we used decision time as an "objective" measure of difficulty (Arkoff, 1957;Boyd et al, 2011;Heitmann & Deutsch, 2018;Minor et al, 1968;Terry, 2010), and found, as predicted, that AV-AV conflicts took longer to resolve than AP-AP conflicts when the conflicts were embedded in the positive affective context, but not when they were embedded in the negative affective context. These findings complement those of Study 1, in which we found a similar pattern for "subjective" self-reported difficulty.…”

“…He found that participants took longer to resolve the AV-AV conflicts and judged them to be more difficult to resolve, compared to the AP-AP conflicts. Subsequent research has produced similar results for both decision time (Atthowe, 1960;Barker, 1942;Boyd et al, 2011;Epstein & Smith, 1967;Heitmann & Deutsch, 2018;Houston et al, 1991;Minor et al, 1968;Murray, 1975;Ringuette, 1965;Schill, 1966;Terry, 2010) and experienced difficulty (Chatterjee & Heath, 1996;Minor et al, 1968;Murray, 1975;Terry, 2010). There is thus a widespread agreement, based on sound theoretical logic, and robust and replicable experimental evidence, that AV-AV conflicts are more difficult to resolve than AP-AP ones.…”

“…As predicted, AV–AV conflicts were experienced as more difficult to resolve than AP–AP conflicts when the conflicts were embedded in the positive affective context, but not when they were embedded in the negative affective context. Next, in Study 2, we focused on conflict resolution duration (e.g., Arkoff, 1957; Barker, 1942; Boyd et al, 2011; Heitmann & Deutsch, 2018; Minor et al, 1968; Terry, 2010), an “objective” measure of difficulty, to complement the experienced difficulty measure that we used in Study 1.…”

“…E. Miller’s (1944) theory, based on the notion of the dynamic operation of force fields, suggested that the two types of motivational conflicts differ in the relative difficulty of resolving them, such that AV–AV conflicts are more difficult to resolve than AP–AP conflicts. Subsequent research has almost exclusively focused on this main effect of difference in conflict resolution difficulty (e.g., Arkoff, 1957; Barker, 1946; Barker, 1942; Boyd et al, 2011; Heitmann & Deutsch, 2018; Houston et al, 1991; Minor et al, 1968; Murray, 1975; Ringuette, 1965; Schill, 1966; Terry, 2010). However, for the most part, it did not consider, nor explore, contexts that can moderate this difference in the relative difficulty of resolving AP–AP and AV–AV conflicts (see a discussion of a few notable exceptions below).…”