Overcoming Automatic Behavioral Tendencies in Approach-Avoidance Conflict Decisions

Abstract

Adequate control over automatic responses to affective stimuli is crucial for adaptive goal-oriented behavior. However, it remains unclear how individuals overcome automatic approach-avoidance tendencies to appetitive and aversive stimuli. Here we examined free versus forced approach-avoidance decisions to four conditioned stimuli (CSs), which were previously paired with either a single aversive (avCS+) or appetitive outcome (appCS+), both (i.e., conflicting) outcomes (confCS+), or no outcome (neuCS-). These CSs were presented in an anticipation phase before participants could use a joystick to either approach and obtain CS-specific outcomes or avoid without getting anything. Response times, subjective ratings, heart rate, and eye-tracking data were recorded in N = 75 participants. Results revealed that for single outcomes, concordant responses (e.g., avoidance to the avCS+) were faster than forced discordant responses (e.g., approach to the avCS+). During anticipation, gaze fixations shifted towards the spatial location associated with the concordant response for single-outcome stimuli (e.g., upward for avoidance of avCS+). Conflicting stimuli elicited intermediate behavioral and gaze patterns at the group level, while exploratory analyses revealed substantial individual differences: High avoiders (i.e., participants showing an overall high proportion of avoidance) exhibited slower approach responses and greater threat-focused visual attention compared to low avoiders. Decreased heart rate in response to all CSs suggests a general preparation of behavioral responses, while increased pupil dilation during the anticipation of aversive stimuli indicates threat-related processing. These findings suggest that competing outcomes can amplify individual differences in motivational salience and therefore might inspire clinical interventions focused on inhibiting disorder-specific behavioral tendencies.

Keywords: approach‐avoidance conflict; gaze dispersion; inhibitory control; motivated behavior; response time.

FIGURE 1

Timeline of an example trial of the free versus forced approach‐avoidance conflict task. In each trial, participants were presented with the black fixation cross for 2 s, followed by one of four possible CS for 6 s as anticipation phase. A manikin then appeared in the center of the screen, with an open and/or closed door at the top and bottom of the screen for a maximum of 3 s, where participants selected their choice by moving the manikin into an open door using a joystick. In free trials, both doors were open, and participants were free to decide whether to approach or avoid. In forced trials, however, only one door was open that participants were forced to approach (i.e., only the bottom door was open) or avoid (i.e., only the top door was open). During anticipation, participants had no information about whether the trial was free or forced until the response phase began.

FIGURE 2

Ratings of valence (a and c), arousal (b and d), and contingency (e) of stimuli after the habituation stage (Hab), the acquisition training (Acq), and the AAC task. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean. NA indicates that ratings were not acquired after a specific stage; please note that in (e) only the contingency ratings for the actual outcome paired with each CS are shown, that is, the displayed contingencies are as follows: AvCS+ with avUS, appCS+ with appUS, confCS+ with confUS, and neuCS− with noUS. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

FIGURE 3

Individual movement trajectories in the free versus forced trials during the AAC task. In free trials, participants displayed the most frequent approach responses to appCS+ (a) and the most frequent avoidance responses to avCS+ (b). At the group level, the requencies of approach and avoidance responses for confCS+ (c) and neuCS‐ (d) were comparable. In forced trials, participants demonstrated evident delays in initiating joystick movement when forced to avoid the appCS+ (e) and approach the avCS+ (f). Delays in initiating movement were also observed in forced avoidance for confCS+ (g) and neuCS‐ (h).

FIGURE 4

Behavioral responses in the free versus forced AAC task. (a) Proportion of avoidance in free trials. The dashed line in the histogram indicates the cutoff of high versus low avoiders. (b) Response times in forced approach and avoidance. (c) Response times of confCS+ (high versus low avoiders) in forced approach and avoidance. (d) Valence rating of confCS+ at the three stages of habituation (Hab), acquisition training (Acq) and the AAC task, respectively. Error bars indicate the standard errors of the mean. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

FIGURE 5

Oculomotor and physiological responses during CS presentation in the habituation stage, the acquisition training, and the anticipation phase in the AAC task. (a–c) Relative vertical gaze position. (d–f) Heart rate changes. (g–i) Pupil diameter changes. Shaded ribbons denote standard errors of the mean. Horizontal lines at the top of the plot indicate significant differences between the appetitive, aversive, and conflicting conditions with the neutral CS, respectively.