Hand Movement Trajectories Illustrate the Mechanism Underlying Kurt Lewin's Distinction Between Approach-Approach and Avoidance-Avoidance Motivational Conflicts

Classic motivational conflicts theory (Lewin, 1931) distinguishes between approach-approach, and avoidance-avoidance conflicts. Previous research has focused solely on testing the theory's prediction that avoidance-avoidance conflicts are more difficult to resolve than approach-approach ones, using outcome measures (decision time and self-reports). The theory, however, specifies a force-fields mechanism to account for this difference in conflict resolution difficulty, whereby avoidance-avoidance conflicts (compared to approach-approach ones) elicit more (a) oscillations and (b) return to the middle point between options. However, this force-fields mechanism has never been empirically tested, arguably due to a lack of the tools to do so. In five studies (N = 534 U.K. residents), we use mouse-tracking measures to provide insight into the force-fields mechanism. We show that the force-fields' mechanistic properties-oscillations and returns to the middle point-distinguish the two types of conflict and uniquely account for conflict resolution difficulty beyond standard conflict-strength measures. Moreover, we test a novel, theory-driven prediction and robustly show a differential pattern of increased oscillations as a function of the decision-maker's proximity to the decision options. Finally, we test a boundary condition moderating the influence of conflict type on both the force-fields' mechanistic properties and conflict resolution difficulty.