Behavior in motivational conflicts is determined by magnitude of potential outcomes and relates to anxiety levels.

Human behavior often involves resolving conflicts between motivations to pursue rewards and to avoid harm. Maladaptive resolution of such approach-avoidance conflicts is a hallmark of various psychopathologies, notably anxiety disorders. To systematically study motivated behavior tendencies, we need to identify factors that may drive them, such as sensitivity to the magnitudes of expected outcomes. We developed a novel paradigm that presents conflict situations with parametrically- varying magnitudes of potential monetary gains and losses that map onto a continuous behavioral outcome reflecting willingness to engage in each situation. Using this paradigm, we evaluate the hypothesis that potential outcome magnitudes determine conflict behavior, across a series of studies in different populations and settings - including a proof-of-concept with young adults, replication in a larger sample, online administration, and application to youth with and without anxiety disorders. Our findings demonstrate that outcome magnitudes reliably predicted behavior, yielding robust individual indices of gain-approach and loss-avoidance tendencies. Moreover, anxiety severity was associated with greater passive avoidance in a sample-specific manner. By quantifying individual-level indices that link potential outcome magnitudes to observable behavior, our work offers a reliable framework for investigating adaptive and maladaptive motivated behaviors, with potential utility for both basic and clinical research.