Psychological Conflict

Abstract

Psychological conflict, which MeSH classifies under motivation, is the internal struggle that arises when incompatible impulses, goals, responses or beliefs are active at the same time. This article covers approach-avoidance conflict and its translation from animal to human paradigms, conflict among personal goals and its links with well-being, response conflict in tasks such as the Stroop task and the conflict-monitoring account of cognitive control, the measurement of adaptive control, cognitive dissonance between behavior and belief, and attitudinal ambivalence. The forms differ in what conflicts and in how they have been studied.

Keywords: conflict, approach-avoidance, conflict monitoring, cognitive dissonance, ambivalence

Avoidance behavior in clinical anxiety disorders is often a decision made in response to approach-avoidance conflict, resulting in a sacrifice of potential rewards to avoid potential negative affective consequences (Kirlic et al., 2017). At the level of information processing, one proposal holds that the demand for cognitive control may be evaluated in part by monitoring for conflicts in information processing (Botvinick et al., 2001).

What Psychological Conflict Is

Research on psychological conflict spans several levels. People are generally averse toward conflict between the beliefs and feelings underlying their attitudes, which is called attitudinal ambivalence (van Harreveld et al., 2009). At the level of personal goals, one program examined the influence of goal conflict and ambivalence on psychological and physical well-being through the personal striving framework (Emmons & King, 1988).

Types of Psychological Conflict

MeSH places psychological conflict within motivation and files one narrower descriptor beneath it, role conflict.

This is a classification for indexing literature, not a partition of conflict processes: MeSH files only role conflict as a narrower descriptor. Role conflict does not yet have its own article on this site, so it appears without a link.

Approach and Avoidance

Lewin's selected papers set out a dynamic theory of personality (Lewin, 1935), and classic motivational conflicts theory distinguishes approach-approach conflicts, in which a decision is made between desirable alternatives, from avoidance-avoidance conflicts, in which a decision is made between undesirable alternatives; research has shown that avoidance-avoidance conflicts are more difficult to resolve (Levy et al., 2023). The theory specifies a force-fields mechanism for that difference, in which avoidance-avoidance conflicts elicit more oscillations and more returns to the middle point between options, and mouse-tracking studies found that these properties distinguish the two types of conflict (Enisman et al., 2024). Animal research has a long history of relying on paradigms related to approach-avoidance conflict to model anxiety-relevant behavior, including punishment-based conflict, exploratory and social interaction tasks (Kirlic et al., 2017). An early experimental analysis measured gradients of approach and avoidance responses and their relation to level of motivation (Brown, 1948). One neuropsychological account of defense, presented as an update and simplification of Gray's neuropsychology of anxiety, distinguishes a defensive direction in which avoidance of threat corresponds to fear and approach to threat corresponds to anxiety (McNaughton & Corr, 2004). A review of animal tests related to approach-avoidance conflict described a recent surge of interest in translating such paradigms from animal to human, in efforts to increase generalization of findings and support the development of more effective mental health treatments (Kirlic et al., 2017). The relation of conflict to anxiety is covered further under anxiety.

Conflict Among Goals

In two studies, eighty-eight undergraduates listed 15 of their personal strivings and rated them on the amount of conflict experienced between them and the ambivalence experienced about each (Emmons & King, 1988). Conflict and ambivalence were associated with high levels of negative affect, depression, neuroticism and psychosomatic complaints, and conflict was also associated with health center visits and illnesses over the past year (Emmons & King, 1988). In a third study, participants were less likely to act on conflictful and ambivalent strivings but spent more time thinking about them (Emmons & King, 1988).

Response Conflict and Control

The conflict-monitoring hypothesis proposes that the demand for control may be evaluated in part by monitoring for conflicts in information processing, and is supported by data concerning the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain area involved in cognitive control that also appears to respond to the occurrence of conflict (Botvinick et al., 2001). Using the Stroop color-naming task and controlling for repetition effects, one study found that conflict-related activity in the anterior cingulate cortex predicted both greater prefrontal cortex activity and adjustments in behavior (Kerns et al., 2004). The Stroop task is covered in its own article.

A later review reported that evidence had largely corroborated the conflict-monitoring hypothesis, while other findings had posed specific challenges, especially concerning the way the theory addresses the processing of errors (Botvinick et al., 2004). The behavioral adjustments themselves had been disputed before that study: as Kerns et al. noted, the very occurrence of behavioral adjustments after conflict had been questioned (Kerns et al., 2004). An updated review of that debate argued that evidence purported to support conflict monitoring, primarily proportion congruent and congruency sequence effects, has been frequently criticized, and that the net results can be more coherently understood in terms of simpler learning and memory biases unrelated to conflict or attention that confound the key paradigms (Schmidt, 2019). A later theory recast the function of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex more broadly, proposing that its diverse roles, from reward processing and performance monitoring to the execution of control, can be understood as allocation of control based on an evaluation of the expected value of control (Shenhav et al., 2013). Research on adaptive control in selective attention tasks has also repeatedly identified potential confounds, prompting adjustments in task design to create confound-minimized metrics (Braem et al., 2019).

Cognitive Dissonance

The theory was set out in Festinger's A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Festinger and Carlsmith opened their report on forced compliance by noting an earlier finding that a large reward produced less subsequent opinion change than did a smaller reward, which they described as consistent with the theory they went on to outline (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). In two induced-compliance experiments, a self-report measure of affect was used to show that dissonance is experienced as psychological discomfort and that this discomfort is alleviated on implementation of a dissonance-reduction strategy, attitude change (Elliot & Devine, 1994). An earlier experiment took an attribution approach to the arousal properties of dissonance, using a pill (Zanna & Cooper, 1974). A rival account, self-perception theory, proposed that the attitude statements in dissonance experiments may be regarded as interpersonal judgments in which the observer and the observed happen to be the same individual, so that it is unnecessary to postulate an aversive motivational drive toward consistency (Bem, 1967); the second of Elliot and Devine's experiments was designed to rule out a self-perception-based alternative explanation for the dissonance-reduction findings of their first experiment (Elliot & Devine, 1994).

A review of the theory after 50 years considered the self-consistency, self-affirmation and aversive consequences revisions, research that has challenged each of them, and the action-based model of dissonance, which accepts the original proposal that a sufficient cognitive inconsistency causes dissonance and extends it by proposing why cognitive inconsistency prompts dissonance (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2007). The theory is covered further under cognitive dissonance.

Ambivalence

Decisional conflict has its own book-length treatment, a psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment in decision making (Janis & Mann, 1977). A review integrating research on attitudinal ambivalence with theories of decision making and coping found that ambivalence is experienced as particularly unpleasant when the ambivalent attitude holder is confronted with the necessity to make a choice concerning the attitude object; then, incongruent evaluative components of the attitude become accessible and feelings of uncertainty about potential outcomes arise (van Harreveld et al., 2009). Several coping strategies, both emotion-focused and problem-focused, are employed when ambivalence is experienced as unpleasant (van Harreveld et al., 2009). A later review treated ambivalence as a case of mixed feelings (Schneider & Schwarz, 2017).

Worked Example

The personal-striving study gives a sense of scale. Eighty-eight undergraduates each listed 15 personal strivings (Emmons & King, 1988), so the studies drew on 88 × 15 = 1,320 listed strivings, and each striving could be rated against the other 14, giving 15 × 14 / 2 = 105 possible pairs of strivings per participant.

Discussion

The forms share a structure but differ in their evidence. Response conflict has a specific computational and neural account (Botvinick et al., 2001) that a 2004 review reported as largely corroborated while facing challenges about errors (Botvinick et al., 2004) and whose key evidence a later review argued is more coherently understood in terms of simpler learning and memory biases (Schmidt, 2019); dissonance has an account of why cognitive inconsistency prompts dissonance (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2007); and the cited work on goal conflict and ambivalence describes their correlates and, for ambivalence, the coping it prompts and a model of its consequences (Emmons & King, 1988; van Harreveld et al., 2009).

Current Directions

A consensus statement among opposing theorists specified how researchers can measure four hallmark indices of adaptive control, the congruency sequence effect and list-wide, context-specific and item-specific proportion congruency effects, while minimizing easy-to-overlook confounds (Braem et al., 2019). Translational work on approach-avoidance conflict has developed human paradigms to tap constructs studied in animals, with similarities and differences in findings across species (Kirlic et al., 2017).

Common Misconceptions

Cognitive dissonance is only a matter of logical inconsistency.

In two experiments, dissonance was experienced as psychological discomfort, a motivational state (Elliot & Devine, 1994).

Conflicting goals simply cancel each other out.

Participants were less likely to act on conflictful strivings but spent more time thinking about them (Emmons & King, 1988).

The conflict-monitoring account is settled.

A 2004 review found it largely corroborated, but with specific challenges, especially concerning the processing of errors (Botvinick et al., 2004); a later review argued that the evidence for it can be more coherently understood in terms of simpler learning and memory biases (Schmidt, 2019).

Glossary

Action-based model of dissonance.

An extension of dissonance theory proposing why cognitive inconsistency prompts dissonance.

Adaptive control.

Adjustment of control processes in selective attention tasks, measured by indices such as the congruency sequence effect.

Anterior cingulate cortex.

A brain area involved in cognitive control that also appears to respond to the occurrence of conflict.

Approach-avoidance conflict.

Conflict between pursuing potential rewards and avoiding potential negative consequences.

Attitudinal ambivalence.

Conflict between the beliefs and feelings underlying an attitude.

Cognitive control.

The processes whose demand, on the conflict-monitoring account, is evaluated in part by monitoring for conflicts in information processing.

Cognitive dissonance.

The state caused by a sufficient cognitive inconsistency, experienced as psychological discomfort.

Conflict monitoring.

The hypothesized detection of conflicts in information processing that signals a need for greater control.

Congruency sequence effect.

One of four hallmark indices of adaptive control in conflict tasks.

Induced compliance.

An experimental procedure in which people are led to act against their attitude, used to study dissonance.

MAID model.

The model of ambivalence-induced discomfort, which aims to describe the consequences of ambivalence.

Personal strivings.

Goals that people list and rate in the personal striving framework, used to study goal conflict.

Proportion congruency effect.

An index of adaptive control in list-wide, context-specific and item-specific forms.

Stroop task.

A color-naming task used to study response conflict and the engagement of control.

Key Researchers

Matthew M. Botvinick

(b. 1968). Neuroscientist at Google DeepMind and the Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, UCL; with colleagues proposed the conflict-monitoring hypothesis of cognitive control. ORCID - Google Scholar

Jonathan D. Cohen

Neuroscientist at Princeton University (Princeton Neuroscience Institute); co-authored the conflict-monitoring account and the study linking anterior cingulate conflict activity to adjustments in control. ORCID - Wikidata - Wikipedia - Google Scholar - Faculty Page

Andrew J. Elliot

Psychologist at the University of Rochester; with Patricia Devine showed that dissonance is experienced as psychological discomfort. Wikidata - Wikipedia - Google Scholar

Robert A. Emmons

Psychologist at the University of California, Davis; with Laura King studied conflict among personal strivings and its links with well-being. Wikidata - Wikipedia - Google Scholar - Faculty Page

Eddie Harmon-Jones

Psychologist at the University of New South Wales; reviewed dissonance theory and the action-based model of dissonance. ORCID

Frequently Asked Questions

What is psychological conflict?

It covers several forms of internal struggle; for example, people are generally averse toward conflict between the beliefs and feelings underlying their attitudes (van Harreveld et al., 2009).

What is approach-avoidance conflict?

It is the conflict involved when avoidance means sacrificing potential rewards to avoid potential negative affective consequences, as often happens in clinical anxiety disorders (Kirlic et al., 2017).

Is goal conflict bad for well-being?

In students who rated their personal strivings, conflict and ambivalence were associated with high levels of negative affect, depression, neuroticism and psychosomatic complaints (Emmons & King, 1988).

How does the brain detect conflict?

The conflict-monitoring hypothesis proposes that the demand for control may be evaluated in part by monitoring for conflicts in information processing, and the anterior cingulate cortex appears to respond to the occurrence of conflict (Botvinick et al., 2001).

Does conflict lead to better control on the next trial?

In a Stroop study, conflict-related activity in the anterior cingulate cortex predicted greater prefrontal cortex activity and adjustments in behavior (Kerns et al., 2004), although a later review argued that the evidence for such adjustments can be more coherently understood in terms of simpler learning and memory biases (Schmidt, 2019).

What does cognitive dissonance feel like?

In two experiments, dissonance was experienced as psychological discomfort that was alleviated on implementation of attitude change (Elliot & Devine, 1994).

When is ambivalence most unpleasant?

A review found it particularly unpleasant when the ambivalent attitude holder is confronted with the necessity to make a choice concerning the attitude object (van Harreveld et al., 2009).

How is adaptive control measured?

A consensus statement specified four hallmark indices, the congruency sequence effect and list-wide, context-specific and item-specific proportion congruency effects (Braem et al., 2019).

References