The Action Dynamics of Approach-Avoidance Conflict in Decision-Making: A mouse-tracking study

Approach-avoidance conflict is observed in the competing motivations towards the benefits and away from the costs of a decision. The current study employs the action dynamics of response motion, via mouse-tracking, in an attempt to characterize the continuous dynamic resolution of such conflicts. Approach-avoidance conflict (AAC) was generated by varying the appetitive consequences of a decision (i.e., point rewards and shorter participation time) in the presence of a simultaneous aversive consequence (i.e., shock probability). In two experiments, we found that AAC differentially affected response trajectories. Overall, approach trajectories were less complex than avoidance trajectories. 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.

A Blanket Injunction Against Disciplinary Use of Spanking Is Not Warranted by the Data

As Dr Larzelere's review of quality studies documents, a blanket injunction against disciplinary spanking by parents is not scientifically supportable. My brief commentary will consist of seven propositions that pertain to his conclusions. PROPOSITION 1 The effects of parents' disciplinary methods are mediated by children's perception of their legitimacy. Reasoning with a child helps to legitimate parental authority, but to be maximally effective when a child disobeys, reasoning must be backed up periodically by consequences. Reasoning used in conjunction with power-assertive methods clarifies the behavioral contingencies for the child by specifying what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. When compliance cannot be obtained by repeating the directive, the addition of aversive consequences, which can include a couple of smart spanks, may be indicated. With defiant children, an additional aversive consequence enhances the effectiveness of time-out.1 Brief explanations prior to or subsequent to punishment convey the purpose behind the rules, simultaneously reinforce their inevitability, and allow the child to evaluate the reasons given. Reasoning broadens the context in which compliance is expected by generalizing from a specific act to a rule governing the larger class of behavior expected of the child. By explaining the objectives of discipline, parents enable their children to control punishment by controlling the behavior on which punishment is contingent. PROPOSITION 2 The use of reasoning in conjunction with power-assertive methods, including physical punishment, can encourage internalization. The judicious and limited use of power-assertive methods, including punishment, does not prevent children from internalizing parents' values.2 For example, power assertion together with explanations has been shown to increase rather than to decrease the likelihood that children will share even after instructions to do so are discontinued.3

Caution Behavior and its Conditioning in Driving

If people drove more cautiously, there might be fewer accidents. Caution behavior includes pausing and looking. It is suggested that the “precautionary pause” based on a longer response latency and reduced force can be conditioned into drivers as avoidance behavior. In laboratory research that can be construed as simulation of driving, latencies were lengthened and forces diminished because of the contingencies of an aversive consequence. Accidents, near-accidents, and verbalizations about them can be viewed as aversive consequences that generate driver avoidance behavior, including the precautionary pause. How might the driving environment, including motivational signs, be designed to exploit this process and thereby contribute to highway safety?