New HU study challenges Kurt Lewin's theory of motivational conflict resolution

Israel’s wars with Hamas terrorists, Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and others and freeing the more than 120 captives seem – after eight months – impossible to resolve. Which conflicts can be settled? 

A recent series of experiments conducted by doctoral student Maya Enisman and Dr. Tali Kleiman from the psychology department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU) challenges the longstanding theory of motivational conflict resolution that has been introduced by Prof. Kurt Lewin. 

They have just published their study in the American Psychological Association journal Emotion under the title “The relative difficulty of resolving motivational conflicts is affective context-dependent.”

Lewin, the Prussian-born, Jewish-American psychologist who was regarded as one of the modern pioneers of social organizational, and applied psychology in the US – was the 18th most-cited psychologist of the 20th century. 

When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, he moved with his family to England and then to the US, working at the University of Iowa and then the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Challenging Lewin’s long-standing motivational conflicts theory

A new study reviewed and challenged Kurt Lewin’s long-standing motivational conflicts theory with new findings that suggest the difficulty of resolving conflicts depends on the emotional context. The study found that avoidance-avoidance conflicts are more challenging in positive and neutral contexts, while no significant difference was found in negative contexts. The results of this study expand our understanding of decision-making conflicts.

Lewin argued that avoidance-avoidance conflicts in which people 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.

Enisman and Kleiman conducted five experiments and argued 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. They suggested 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 introduced 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 stressed 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.” Enisman concluded.