Humans have a remarkable ability to plan ahead, set goals for the future and then to act accordingly. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Everybody has experienced situations in which motivational urges like a tendency to drink another beer, or over-learned behavioral routines like driving on the right side of the road collide with ones´ goals. This tug of war between impulsive or habitual action tendencies and goal-directed actions is called a conflict. Conflict is ubiquitous and comes in many different ways. Not surprisingly, the means to control conflict are diverse, too. Clearly, people can manage conflict in multiple ways: When expecting a conflict situation to occur in the future, one can recruit more effort to resolve the conflict, for instance by inhibiting unwanted urges or habits. Alternatively one can avoid the conflict situation and thereby circumvent possible failures to control habits and impulses. Furthermore, when currently facing a conflict, people can mobilize more effort to overcome the conflict. Alternatively they can withdraw from the conflict situation to minimize the risk of indulging in their impulses and habits. To account for these different ways to master a conflict, the present thesis takes an initial step towards a characterization of the variability of control. To this aim, two dimensions of control will be identified that result from partially incompatible constraints on action control. These dimensions depict a trade-off between flexibility and stability and between anticipatory early selection and reactive late correction of control parameters. To describe how these control trade-offs interact and to explain how conflict is handled to ensure adaptation behavior, the conflict management framework is proposed. A corollary of this framework suggests that one strategy to control conflict comprises of a tendency to withdraw from a conflict situation. The empirical part probed this behavioral response to conflict and tested whether participants withdraw from conflict situations. To approach this hypothesis, three series of experiments are presented that employ free choice paradigms, speeded response classification tasks and continuous movement tracking tasks to reveal withdrawal from conflict. Results show that conflict caused motivational avoidance tendencies (Experiment 1 &2), biased decision making away from conflict tasks (Experiment 3 & 5) and affected the execution of more complex courses of action (Experiment 6 & 7). The results lend support for the proposed conflict management framework and provide the ground for a more thorough treatment of how the different conflict strategies can be integrated. As a first step, a connectionist model is presented that accounts for the simultaneous implementation of two conflict strategies observed in Experiments 3 – 5. The remainder of the present thesis analyses failures to integrate different conflict strategies. It is discussed how the conflict management framework can shed light on selected psychopathologies, inter-individual differences in control and break-downs of self-control.

A hallmark of habitual actions is that, once they are established, they become insensitive to changes in the values of action outcomes. In this article, we review empirical research that examined effects of posttraining changes in outcome values in outcome-selective Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) tasks. This review suggests that cue-instigated action tendencies in these tasks are not affected by weak and/or incomplete revaluation procedures (e.g., selective satiety) and substantially disrupted by a strong and complete devaluation of reinforcers. In a second part, we discuss two alternative models of a motivational control of habitual action: a default-interventionist framework and expected value of control theory. It is argued that the default-interventionist framework cannot solve the problem of an infinite regress (i.e., what controls the controller?). In contrast, expected value of control can explain control of habitual actions with local computations and feedback loops without (implicit) references to control homunculi. It is argued that insensitivity to changes in action outcomes is not an intrinsic design feature of habits but, rather, a function of the cognitive system that controls habitual action tendencies.