The role of stimulus-driven versus goal-directed processes in fight and flight tendencies measured with motor evoked potentials induced by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

This study examines two contrasting explanations for early tendencies to fight and flee. According to a stimulus-driven explanation, goal-incompatible stimuli that are easy/difficult to control lead to the tendency to fight/flee. According to a goal-directed explanation, on the other hand, the tendency to fight/flee occurs when the expected utility of fighting/fleeing is the highest. Participants did a computer task in which they were confronted with goal-incompatible stimuli that were (a) easy to control and fighting had the highest expected utility, (b) easy to control and fleeing had the highest expected utility, and (c) difficult to control and fleeing and fighting had zero expected utility. After participants were trained to use one hand to fight and another hand to flee, they either had to choose a response or merely observe the stimuli. During the observation trials, single-pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) was applied to the primary motor cortex 450 ms post-stimulus onset and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were measured from the hand muscles. Results showed that participants chose to fight/flee when the expected utility of fighting/fleeing was the highest, and that they responded late when the expected utility of both responses was low. They also showed larger MEPs for the right/left hand when the expected utility of fighting/fleeing was the highest. This result can be interpreted as support for the goal-directed account, but only if it is assumed that we were unable to override the presumed natural mapping between hand (right/left) and response (fight/flight).

Unexpected and just missed: the separate influence of the appraisals of expectancy and proximity on negative emotions.

Previous research has suggested that a goal-incongruent outcome leads to more intense negative emotions when it is unexpected and close to a goal-congruent outcome. Until now, however, no studies have disentangled the influence of the appraisals of expectancy and proximity on emotions. We experimentally manipulated each of these variables in 3 slot machine experiments and measured emotions via differences in motivation (i.e., the tendency to repair the goal incongruence) and feelings (i.e., disappointment, frustration, and anger). The experiments consisted of a series of trials that each started with the sequential presentation of 3 symbols. In case of a win trial, all symbols were equal (e.g., AAA) and the participant gained 10 cents; in case of a loss trial, one or more of the symbols differed and the participant gained 0 cents. Three different loss trials were compared: unexpected proximal ones (e.g., AAB), expected proximal ones (e.g., ABA), and expected distal ones (e.g., ABC). The tendency to repair was measured online via behavior as well as retrospectively via self-reports; feelings were measured retrospectively (Experiments 1 and 2) or online (Experiment 3). Unexpected losses seemed to increase the tendency to repair as well as feelings of disappointment (in all experiments) and feelings of frustration and anger (in Experiments 1 and 3). Proximal losses increased only the tendency to repair (in all experiments). This suggests that the appraisals of expectancy and proximity have a distinct influence on emotions.