The effects of type and strength of induced conflict on conflict generalization and later preference for conflict stimuli1

Abstract

Recently, research has been undertaken m the area of conflict which attempts to deal with the problem of the generalization of conflict effects (Worell, 1962a, Worell, 1962b, Worell, 1963, WoreU & Castaneda, 1961 The aim has been to determme whether prior exposure to different mtensities of conflict affects performance m subsequent conflict situations To date, the results mdicate that the more severe the initial conflict trammg, the greater is the impairment of decision efficiency m a subsequent performance situation of a similar nature In order to account for the effects on the mdividual of exposure to different seventies of conflict, Worell (1962a) has proposed a competmg response formulation Accordmg to this view, it is assumed that exposure to conflict results m the leammg of certam conflict-specific responses such as delaymg a decision or considermg each alternative more carefully Furthermore, it is proposed that these conflict-specific responses generalize and are ehcited m new but similar situationsThe present study exammed the effects of conflict generahzation utilizmg both approach and avoidant personality-relevant conflicts The study was also designed to provide mformation concerning two pertment issues in conflict research (1) the question of the contnbution of the relative vs absolute strengths of competmg tendencies to the mtensity of the conflict situation, and (2) the role of conflict generalization vs dissonance formulations m accountmg for changes in preference for conflict stimuh

Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice.

“…In a series of studies that followed Barker's lead, several investigators (e.g., Arkoff, 1957; Minor, Miller, & Ditrichs, 1968; Murray, 1975; Schill, 1966) demonstrated that making choices between obtaining mutually exclusive unfavorable personality characteristics took significantly longer and was judged as significantly more difficult than making choices between obtaining one of two favorable personality characteristics. Moreover, when an undecided response category was introduced into the task (Murray, 1975), subjects were much more likely to use it in negative avoidance–avoidance conflicts (42%) than in positive approach–approach conflicts (6%).…”

The relative difficulty of resolving motivational conflicts is affective context-dependent.

“…He found that participants took longer to resolve the AV-AV conflicts and judged them to be more difficult to resolve, compared to the AP-AP conflicts. Subsequent research has produced similar results for both decision time (Atthowe, 1960;Barker, 1942;Boyd et al, 2011;Epstein & Smith, 1967;Heitmann & Deutsch, 2018;Houston et al, 1991;Minor et al, 1968;Murray, 1975;Ringuette, 1965;Schill, 1966;Terry, 2010) and experienced difficulty (Chatterjee & Heath, 1996;Minor et al, 1968;Murray, 1975;Terry, 2010). There is thus a widespread agreement, based on sound theoretical logic, and robust and replicable experimental evidence, that AV-AV conflicts are more difficult to resolve than AP-AP ones.…”

“…E. Miller’s (1944) theory, based on the notion of the dynamic operation of force fields, suggested that the two types of motivational conflicts differ in the relative difficulty of resolving them, such that AV–AV conflicts are more difficult to resolve than AP–AP conflicts. Subsequent research has almost exclusively focused on this main effect of difference in conflict resolution difficulty (e.g., Arkoff, 1957; Barker, 1946; Barker, 1942; Boyd et al, 2011; Heitmann & Deutsch, 2018; Houston et al, 1991; Minor et al, 1968; Murray, 1975; Ringuette, 1965; Schill, 1966; Terry, 2010). However, for the most part, it did not consider, nor explore, contexts that can moderate this difference in the relative difficulty of resolving AP–AP and AV–AV conflicts (see a discussion of a few notable exceptions below).…”

Subject-defined vs. experimenter-defined conflict

“…One exception to this is a study reported by Schill (1966) in which conflicts were devised based on the subjects' own ratings of adjectives. In light of Ringuette's (1976) findings, it is reasonable to assume that individuals define conflict in certain individualistic ways, as well as common ways, and that their responses to such self-defined conflicts will differ from their responses to other-defined conflicts.…”