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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

手部运动轨迹说明了 Kurt Lewin 区分接近-接近和回避-回避动机冲突的机制。


经典动机冲突理论（Lewin，1931）区分了接近-接近和回避-回避冲突。先前的研究仅侧重于使用结果衡量标准（决策时间和自我报告）来测试该理论的预测，即回避-回避冲突比接近-接近冲突更难解决。然而，该理论指定了一种力场机制来解释冲突解决难度的差异，从而避免-避免冲突（与接近-接近冲突相比）引发更多（a）振荡和（b）返回到两者之间的中间点选项。然而，这种力场机制从未经过实证检验，可能是由于缺乏这样做的工具。在五项研究（N = 534 名英国居民）中，我们使用鼠标跟踪措施来深入了解力场机制。我们表明，力场的机械特性（振荡和返回中点）区分了两种类型的冲突，并独特地解释了超出标准冲突强度衡量标准的冲突解决难度。此外，我们测试了一种新颖的、理论驱动的预测，并稳健地显示了随着决策者与决策选项的接近程度而变化的振荡增加的差异模式。最后，我们测试了调节冲突类型对力场机械特性和冲突解决难度影响的边界条件。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。