The action dynamics of approach-avoidance conflict during decision-making

Abstract

Approach-avoidance conflict is observed in the competing motivations towards the benefits and away from the costs of a decision. The current study investigates the action dynamics of response motion during such conflicts in an attempt to characterize their dynamic resolution. Approach-avoidance conflict was generated by varying the appetitive consequences of a decision (i.e., point rewards and shorter participation time) in the presence of simultaneous aversive consequences (i.e., shock probability). Across two experiments, approach-avoidance conflict differentially affected response trajectories. Approach trajectories were less complex than avoidance trajectories and, as approach and avoidance motivations neared equipotentiality, response trajectories were more deflected from the shortest route to the eventual choice. Consistency in the location of approach and avoidance response options reduced variability in performance enabling more sensitive estimates of dynamic conflict. The time course of competing influences on response trajectories including trial-to-trial effects and conflict between approach and avoidance were estimated using regression analyses. We discuss these findings in terms of a dynamic theory of approach-avoidance that we hope will lead to insights of practical relevance in the field of maladaptive avoidance.

Hand movement trajectories illustrate the mechanism underlying Kurt Lewin’s distinction between approach–approach and avoidance–avoidance motivational conflicts.

“…We computed conflict-strength measures for each of the trajectories: (a) Maximum Deviation (MD; Boschet et al, 2022; Cummins & De Houwer, 2021; Dale & Duran, 2011; Freeman, 2014; Freeman & Ambady, 2009; Freeman et al, 2008; Garcia-Guerrero et al, 2023; Maldonado et al, 2019; McKinstry et al, 2008; Stillman et al, 2017)—the largest perpendicular deviation of the actual trajectory from an ideal straight line between the start and end points, and (b) Area under the Curve (AUC; Boschet et al, 2022; Cummins & De Houwer, 2021; Dale et al, 2007; Freeman & Ambady, 2010; Garcia-Guerrero et al, 2023; Leontyev & Yamauchi, 2021; Spivey et al, 2005; Stillman et al, 2017, 2020)—the geometric area between the actual trajectory and an ideal line. We further computed two measures corresponding to the mechanistic properties of the force-fields theory: (c) x-flips (to measure oscillatory behavior; Dale & Duran, 2011; Dale et al, 2008; Freeman, 2014; Freeman & Ambady, 2010; Freeman & Johnson, 2016)—the number of reversals of direction along the x -axis, and (d) Returns to Point of Balance (RPB; to quantify the extent to which participants were stuck in the middle between the options in a given trial)—the number of returns to the line where the x coordinate equals 0 (Koop & Johnson, 2013).…”

“…We used MD and AUC to quantify conflict-strength as reflected in the mouse trajectories (Boschet et al, 2022;Garcia-Guerrero et al, 2023;Stillman et al, 2017Stillman et al, , 2020. The average mouse trajectories across all participants and all trials in each condition are plotted in Figure 1.…”

Threatening stimuli have differential effects on movement preparation and execution—A study on snake fear

“…We used a novel categorization task with mouse‐tracking similar to previous research investigating the effect of the presence of various threats to movement preparation and execution (Borkar & Fadok, 2021; Garcia‐Guerrero et al, 2022; March et al, 2021). In the present study, each experimental block started with the two labels (‘Snake’ and ‘Butterfly’) appearing at the top right and left corners of the screen respectively.…”

“…Based on past studies directly observing approach and avoidance behaviour, we would also expect to find that movement initiation times are faster when moving away from a threat than when moving towards them (Garcia-Guerrero et al, 2022). A study exploring approach and avoidance responses used a modification of the Go-NoGo task utilized for a touchscreen device (Rinck et al, 2021).…”

“…In the current investigation, our main goal was to test how threat‐relevant stimuli affect movement preparation and execution as a function of (1) the direction of the movement relative to the threat (towards or away) and (2) individual differences in the threat relevance of the specific object. For this purpose, we utilized a novel categorization task with mouse tracking (Borkar & Fadok, 2021; Garcia‐Guerrero et al, 2022; March et al, 2021). On every trial, a picture appeared either centrally (middle of the screen) or off‐centre (top or bottom of the screen) from the starting point; category labels always appeared on the top of the screen (see Figure 1).…”