Abstract
A common paradigm for investigating approach and avoidance tendencies in two-choice discriminations is one in which an ambiguous cue (A) is paired with a rewarded cue (P) on half the trials (PA trials), in which case it is punished if chosen, and with a negative cue (N) on the other half (NA trials), in which case it is rewarded if chosen. The present study added three-cue (P:N:A) choice trials to the conventional training trials to test the hypothesis that the usual superiority of performance on NA trials would be correlated with a conflict (approach-approach) in choosing between rewarded and ambiguous cues on PA and choice trials. The results confirmed the hypothesis and lent support to the proposal that superior NA performance indicates a greater reliance on approach than avoidance learning processes.