Abstract

PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2019, VOL. 30, NO. 3, 158–164 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2019.1646058 a b Neil McNaughton and Philip J. Corr a b Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Department of Psychology, University London, London, United Kingdom Scholer, Cornwell, and Higgins highlight the complexity Approach and Withdrawal: BAS and FFFS inherent in superficially simple “approach/avoidance” behav- Appropriate approach and withdrawal are fundamental ior. We think they are right to make distinctions between adaptive processes that are phylogenetically very old. In levels of analysis (system, strategy, tactics)—and to relate terms of approach and withdrawal goals (as well, separately, them to parallel distinctions between what they refer to as as actions) they are controlled by conserved systems, the goals, strategies, and behaviors, respectively. They are also most primitive elements of which are found in the periaque- surely right that “approach motivation is not always benefi- ductal gray (Silva & McNaughton 2019); and where we can cial and avoidance motivation is not always problematic” view mammalian, and particularly human, systems as having and that analysis must take into account “which level in the a large number of ever more sophisticated processing mod- hierarchy approach and avoidance is manifested,”“what ules added progressively on top