Search

Researchers in psychology and neuroscience want to know whether conflict and control scale up. Conflict and control mechanisms share many similarities across different levels of analysis. However, empirical evidence does currently not support a unified perspective on action control. We identify two major challenges for theoretical integration: a vertical challenge that requires conflict at different levels of abstraction to be linked, and a horizontal challenge that requires control of conflict at different points in time to be linked. We present a new integrative framework in which we propose that the difference between conflicts can best be understood along the dimension of complexity (i.e., amount of information). We propose that differences in conflict complexity go together with specific costs and benefits and that a normative account of hierarchical conflict control needs to take into account both. People regularly encounter various types of conflict. Here, we ask if, and, if so, how, different types of conflict, from lab-based Stroop conflicts to everyday-life self-control or moral conflicts, are related to one other. We present a framework that assumes that action–goal representations are hierarchically organized, ranging from concrete actions to abstract goals. The framework's key assumption is that conflicts involving more abstract goals (e.g., self-control/moral conflict) are embedded in a more complex action space; thus, to resolve such conflicts, people need to consider more associated goals and actions. We discuss how differences in complexity impact conflict resolution mechanisms and the costs/benefits of resolving conflicts. Altogether, we offer a new way to conceptualize and analyze conflict regulation across different domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human action control relies on representations that integrate perception and action, but the relevant research is scattered over various experimental paradigms and the theorizing is overly paradigm-specific. To overcome this obstacle we propose BRAC (binding and retrieval in action control), an overarching, integrative framework that accounts for a wide range of seemingly unrelated findings by assuming 'two core processes: feature binding and retrieval'. In contrast to previous approaches, we define binding and retrieval as functionally different and separable processes that independently contribute to the observed effects. Furthermore, both processes are independently modulated by top-down and/or bottom-up processes. BRAC organizes the literature on action control in novel ways, and relates diverse independently investigated action-related phenomena from different research fields to each other. We introduce the BRAC framework. The framework is tailored to the sequential structure of action-control tasks and thus can integrate the vast paradigm-specific literature on action control. BRAC is based on two core processes: feature binding and retrieval. We present evidence that these processes operate independently of each other and are separately modulated by top-down and bottom-up influences. BRAC emphasizes the need to disentangle the processing level from the level of observation. Previously published results in action control should be re-evaluated against the framework because previous research did not separately modulate the two core processes. BRAC provides a framework for discussing action-related phenomena beyond the research area of action control, including attention, memory and learning, and motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]