Summary: A new study challenges Kurt Lewin’s theory on conflict resolution, showing that the difficulty in resolving conflicts depends on the emotional context. Their experiments reveal that avoidance-avoidance conflicts are harder to resolve in positive contexts but are similar to approach-approach conflicts in negative contexts.
This study revisits and extends Lewin’s foundational theory, highlighting the importance of emotional context in decision-making.
Key Facts:
- Avoidance-avoidance conflicts are harder to resolve in positive affective contexts.
- No significant difference between avoidance-avoidance and approach-approach conflicts in negative contexts.
- Study introduces a neutral condition to provide a baseline for affective context effects.
Source: Hebrew University of Jerusalem
A recent series of experiments conducted by PhD student Maya Enisman and Dr. Tali Kleiman from the Psychology department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, challenges the longstanding theory of motivational conflict resolution introduced by Kurt Lewin.
According to Lewin, conflicts between two undesirable outcomes (avoidance-avoidance conflicts) are typically harder to resolve than those between two desirable ones (approach-approach conflicts).
Lewin posited that avoidance-avoidance conflicts, where individuals must choose between two undesirable outcomes, are typically more challenging to resolve compared to approach-approach conflicts, which involve choosing between two desirable options.
In avoidance-avoidance conflicts, the intensity of negative feelings associated with both choices and the difficulty in decision-making often lead to heightened psychological distress.
Unlike approach-approach conflicts, where decision-making may involve selecting the option with the most benefits, avoidance-avoidance conflicts require navigating between two undesirable outcomes or finding a compromise to minimize negative consequences.
Maya Enisman and Dr. Tali Kleiman’s new study, which includes five experiments, argues that the difficulty of resolving these conflicts is not solely the result of the type of conflict, but rather depends on the compatibility between the conflicts and the emotional context in which they occur.
The findings suggest that avoidance-avoidance conflicts are notably more challenging in positive affective contexts, but show no significant difference in resolution difficulty from approach-approach conflicts in negative contexts.
The study also introduces a neutral condition to provide a baseline for these effects, contrasting with previous research which did not account for the impact of the affective context. These insights test the boundaries of the accepted wisdom that has prevailed since Lewin’s theory was first proposed in 1931.
The researchers also pointed out the social influence of these conflicts, noting how avoidance-avoidance dilemmas are often depicted in idioms like “between a rock and a hard place,” reflecting the deep-seated nature of such conflicts in human experience. In contrast, approach-approach conflicts are less likely to be expressed in similarly vivid terms, suggesting a social representation that aligns with Lewin’s original findings.
“This study revisits a foundational theory in Social Psychology and opens new pathways for understanding decision-making conflicts under various contextual influences.” stated PhD student Maya Enisman, lead researcher of the study.
About this emotion and decision-making research news
Author: Danae Marx
Source: Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Contact: Danae Marx – Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Closed access.
“The relative difficulty of resolving motivational conflicts is affective context-dependent” by Maya Enisman et al. Emotion
Abstract
The relative difficulty of resolving motivational conflicts is affective context-dependent
According to Lewin’s seminal motivational theory, conflicts between undesirable alternatives (avoidance–avoidance conflicts) are more difficult to resolve than conflicts between desirable alternatives (approach–approach conflicts).
This difference in the difficulty of resolving approach–approach and avoidance–avoidance conflicts was suggested as a general law for human behavior, and subsequent research provided robust evidence to support it.
Here we challenge this assertion. We argue that the difference in conflict resolution difficulty depends on the compatibility between the type of conflict (approach–approach vs. avoidance–avoidance) and the affective context (positive vs. negative) in which the conflict is being resolved.
We report five studies. Data were collected from 2019 to 2021. In Studies 1–4, we presented participants with both conflict types, embedded in either a positive or a negative affective context.
Across different designs and stimuli, and for both experienced difficulty and decision time, we found that in a positive affective context, avoidance–avoidance conflicts were more difficult to resolve than approach–approach conflicts; however, in a negative affective context, no difference between the conflict types was found.
In Study 5, we added a neutral control condition to relate our findings to previous research, which did not manipulate the affective context.
Taken together, our findings challenge a seminal motivational theory and show that choosing the lesser of two evils is not always more difficult than choosing the greater of two goods. Instead, the difference in conflict resolution difficulty depends on the affective context in which the choice is being made.
