Approach–Avoidance Conflict

Definition

Approach means moving toward something. Avoidance means moving away from it. Obviously you can't move toward and away from the same thing at the same time. Approach–avoidance conflict arises when a goal has both positive and negative aspects, and thus leads to approach and avoidance reactions at the same time. Kurt Lewin introduced the concept, referring to two competing forces of positive and negative valence that act upon an individual in parallel. For example, if a person wants to eat a cake (positive valence) but also wants to avoid gaining weight (negative valence), this constitutes an approach–avoidance conflict that has to be solved. People can also experience approach–approach conflicts (two positive forces are activated; for example, if the person considers two movies worth seeing), avoidance–avoidance conflicts (two negative forces are activated; for example, if the person has to do decide whether to go to the dentist or to finish unpleasant homework), or a double approach–avoidance conflict (two choice alternatives contain both positive and negative aspects; for example, if the decision between two movies is complicated because both contain performers one likes and hates). All kinds of conflicts have been discussed throughout various areas of psychology, including psychopathology, motivation psychology, and organizational psychology.

Factors for Strength of Conflict and Conflict Resolution

For approach–avoidance conflict strength and resolution, Lewin suggested three factors: tension which is created by a need or a desire (e.g., I am hungry vs. I want to lose weight), magnitude of valence (e.g., I do like cake a lot vs. I do hate being overweight), and psychological distance (e.g., the cake is easy to get vs. it is hard to obtain my goal of 160 pounds). If tension, valence, and distance are equally strong, the conflict is not easy to solve, making it so that such conflicts can be relatively stable over time. Psychologically, one possible solution is to change the valence of the aspects of the goal aspects. One can, for example, devalue the cake by actively searching for negative aspects of it, or one can increase the importance of staying slim by collecting even more positive aspects of it. For approach–avoidance conflicts, distance seems to be a crucial factor. Lewin reasoned that whereas from a distance the positive valence looms larger, the closer one gets to the conflicted goal, the larger looms the negative valence. An individual first approaches the conflicted goal at a distance, then is blocked and vacillates at an intermediate point when avoidance and approach become equally strong, and finally retreats when even closer to the goal.

Further Qualifications and Findings

Neal Miller advanced this approach and combined it with Clark Hull's notion of goal gradients, defining distance as a crucial variable of motivation. The closer one is to the goal, the stronger the motivation (i.e., the goal looms larger effect), and this gradient is steeper for avoidance than approach goals. In other words, as you get closer to something you want, the desire to approach it grows stronger little by little; whereas as you get closer to something you hate or wish to avoid, the desire to avoid it grows stronger rapidly. Because in conflict situations the stronger reaction usually wins, avoidance reactions have a slight advantage over approach reactions to be instantiated. Primary support for the differences of approach versus avoidance gradients came from studies by Judson Brown, in which harnessed rats were interrupted at various stages of approaching food and avoiding shock, showing that avoidance reactions were stronger when the rats were closer to shock than when they were approaching food. Seymour Epstein was able to find similar results with amateur parachutists before their first jump, illustrating that fear reactions increased the closer individuals were to their goal. On the other hand, directly before the jump the approach reaction increased dramatically, as presumably individuals were able to cope with the fear quite efficiently. Walter Fenz qualified the findings in showing that good parachutists and experts show approach reactions earlier before their jump.

...